----- Original Message ----- From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Was lemmings... now What is WISPA?
> Mark, > > Justify it anyway you like. Civil disobedience is not a viable solution. > I don't see a large number of people stepping up to the plate and > defending your position. Who said to be 'civil disobedient'? THAT is what's going on with thousands now. I'm suggesting that we recruit those hundreds...errr..thousands to file and say that they cannot comply. This is not civil disobedience, this is changing the POV of people who made bad policy. They can't possibly undertake the task of taking down thousands of tiny networks, which is what would change policies and possibly get pretty much all of us exempted or changed to some non-mandated terms. Oh, WISPA can just toss them to the wolves and lose absolutely ANY chance of getting them into membership and support. These people ask "what's the value" in being a member... and if all WISPA's going to do is toss them under the bus, you might as well write off the vast majority of smaller network operators from EVER supporting WISPA in any meaningful fashion. Talk about chopping off your nose to spite your face... Cripes... I've been trying to argue that WISPA is throwing away a HUGE opportunity by not defending the industry as a whole, and is, in effect, alienating the very people it needs to become a much more effective organization. There are NOT thousands of big, profitable WISP's. There ARE thousands of tiny network operators, community networks, neighborhood networks, and other small ventures that simply cannot "go it alone" and be compliant, but if we could give them a reason... if we ACTUALLY fought for them, then we might create a reason they'd support us. Instead, all we see is intangible promises of 'we'll do what we can' and "we can't resist so shut up and go die quietly". Read that document from the FCC again, there's HUGE areas of required compliance that have NOT EVEN BEEN MENTIONED by anything to come from WISPA nor anyone else I've seen, and we have 3 weeks to somehow bridge this gulf, educate everyone, and try some give and take with the regulators. In other words... > > Regards, > Dawn DiPietro > > Mark Koskenmaki wrote: > > Wow. I guess the title really is right. > > > > When I participated in the debates about who was a WISP, and who could join > > WISPA, we were very broad, and included community networks, free networks, > > big and small operators.. including the guy who is just a "hobby" type > > network operator, but provides connection to his small town, community, > > neighborhood, or even just block. > > > > Now we've decided that the only people who "count" are the big guys. The > > "professionals"? A "few hundred"? I know that lots of people didn't file > > 477 so that they could hide when the next thing came out... And it was no > > time at all. What will happen when the next mandate comes? Will you > > start referencing the "scores" of WISP's? After the next one will it be > > the "dozens"? > > > > Marlon thinks there's 10,000 of us. > > > > I think there's 20K of us, including all the wide array of informal, hobby, > > free, or otherwise not set up an advertised for profit ISP. So, we just > > toss all them to the wolves to feed on first, before they get to us? You > > KNOW that the vast majority of these things are theoretically covered by > > CALEA, but will never file a single thing, won't have any ability to assist > > law enforcement, and will continue operating under the radar, possibly > > getting destroyed one by one as circumstances bring them to light. > > > > So, you think that the FCC is going OUTLAW delivering internet via wireless > > because we discuss tactics about how to get them to face reality? I don't > > advocate lying to anyone. If you can, by george, file you can. But for the > > rest of us.. File you can't. And I'd encourage EVERY ONE OF THOSE 15-20K > > network operators to do the same. Create the logjam that teaches > > regulators when they've done wrong. This is the most basic tenet of > > democracy I can think of. There is no "holiness" to the government or to > > law they write. It does not come from God to them to us. All are subject > > to negotiation and resistance by the governed. > > > > I WILL DO JUST THAT, because I can't without changing my network. But, > > I'll just be offering my "farewell" email to the list soon UNLESS we stick > > together, and unless WISPA and everyone else starts telling them to back off > > and that the vast majority of operators actually cannot reasonably comply. > > As far as I can tell, the only informal WISPA communication was that we can! > > > > And if they shut me down... what will WISPA's stance be? "oh, he was a > > renegade?" That looks like what you all want to do. AT least the public > > list won't be cluttered with noise about trying to save the WISP industry > > from exinction. Sheesh. Who cares about that radical issue? > > > > I have written over and over and over that this isn't about me, nor my views > > on the right or wrong... but about our industry and DEFENDING IT. And it > > appears the biggest fight WISPA wants to have is the one to shut up those > > who want to save their own skin, plus that of their fellow intrepid > > operators. > > > > I would encourage you to sit down and read the last FCC published document > > on the topic of CALEA. You need to understand that what we are supposedly > > working on as "compliance" is not fixed AT ALL. Just becoming presently > > "compliant" is not a gauranteed long term or future solution. The FCC > > reserves the right to mandate PRECISELY what we are doing, and even in the > > future to demand certification of the equipment we use. They are resisting > > that now, but but as history shows and the fact that they're trying to force > > CALEA compliance on us, that they're as bendable as a willow in the wind. > > This is not, as some people are attempting to portray it a "minor, one time > > bump in the road". It's going to get bigger and it's going to continue to > > be a source of heartburn even for those who can comply now. > > > > All of this is a "trial run" (my words, not theirs) to see how well it > > works. If the results...after we re-build, restructure, or in some cases, > > do very little... aren't satisfactory, they can revisit and impose HUGE > > mandates that would bury pretty much every WISP except perhaps a few of the > > multi-million dollar ones. And that "revisit" is not determined by the > > FCC's opinion, it's going to be in consultation with the DOJ and FBI, who > > wanted MUCH more, and may very well get MUCH more, unless we start making > > the case this is bad law, policy, and the wrong approach. > > > > We cannot consider CALEA issues dealt with and just go back to business as > > usual, because the deadline passes and we have something that "works" under > > the guidelines. I predict that the deadline will pass and only those who > > have a c ontract with a TTP and a couple of router manufacturers will > > actually have full compliance. That will be only some of the "hundreds" > > we're talking about right now. I further predict that in a year or two, > > further mandates about CALEA will come along. These will be mandates on > > equipment providers. And they will be attempting to explain how CALEA > > compliance will occur using what they sell. We'll see most of what's out > > there vanish almost overnight, with only a few remaining major players. > > When you read through everything, you find out that they're being very very > > flexible right now, since they're not even able to figure out how to apply > > telco terms and law to packet based networks. But they still reserve the > > right to impose their own definitions of a huge array of terms, and just > > those redefinitions could be HUGE obstacles to some of us. > > > > SOME of you actually like the idea of having only big players, but if that's > > what happens, then the only people in the wireless business will be the big > > boys and all the rest will be dead and off flipping burgers or whatever it > > is we can do. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:43 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? > > > > > > > >> Mark, > >> > >> At this point you are beating a dead horse. We know how you feel about > >> the government and following the laws put in place for your protection. > >> But to be honest with you this is getting old. > >> We need to change the focus of this conversation on how to comply with > >> these rules not how much we should disregard them. I doubt civil > >> disobedience will work in this case not with the small > >> number of WISP's we are talking about here. If this type of discussion > >> keeps this up the FCC could just regulate the WISP industry out of > >> existence. I doubt that is what your end goal is. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Dawn DiPietro > >> > >> > >> Mark Koskenmaki wrote: > >> > >>> I think Steve's point was to contrast Patrick Henry's determination with > >>> some people's attitude that resistance is futile. > >>> > >>> Frankly, I think EVERY WISP should file that they are NOT compliant and > >>> > > have > > > >>> no prospect of being. The FCC would simply be snowed under attempting > >>> > > to > > > >>> deal with HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS of individual cases and would end up > >>> > > having > > > >>> to make some kind of change in the way they do business. > >>> > >>> I don't know how many people work there, but for them to adequately deal > >>> with 500, 1000, or even 10,000 "cannot comply" filings, well, I KNOW > >>> > > they > > > >>> can't. This would force changes in the way they expect to deal with > >>> > > such > > > >>> a diverse and LARGE group. They're used to regulating industries with > >>> > > a > > > >>> handful of players. For them to take on regulating an industry with > >>> > > more > > > >>> operators than telephone companies, radio stations, and cell phone > >>> > > operators > > > >>> combined is a challenge far beyond what I think they had any inkling > >>> > > they > > > >>> would be required to do. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:15 AM > >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] LEMMINGS? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 4/26/07, George Rogato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Jeromie Reeves wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 4/19/07, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> as Patrick Henry once said > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Who is Patrick Henry?? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> Didn't Patrick Henry say Give me liberty or give me death? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Yes he did. Your chopping off my sarcasm tag misrepresents my words. > >>>> The quote in my email was also by Patrick Henry. Steve attributed > >>>> "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." to Mr. Henry but I do > >>>> not remember him ever saying it (course I was a bit young back in the > >>>> 1700's and my memory is not what it once was.). > >>>> -- > >>>> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>>> > >>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> -- > >> WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
