Tom, I'll answer your question and I need to change up the topic. In part I agree and I am not set against working this out, but Martin is setting up some bad and continuing precedence on how the FCC is working within their legal purview. He is already on the hot seat with Congress on some of his actions.
Topic Change: I can guarantee you, I will be all over any actions that effect my current business, as I was unfortunately too late to make any difference saving our wireline business. Even when I co-founded the WBIA back in Oct 2004, I knew it was too late, but I have learned a great deal from it. My take away was how much the deck is stacked against when your peers don't give a hoot and unite under a common cause. But even when we showed the willingness to do something, we were able assembly a consult of people to help us guide our efforts. Peter R., Jim Garrett and a few others can attest to what my co-founder Cynthia de Lorenzi and myself were able to accomplish. Even though the RBOC's had tacit agreements underlying their competitive opportunities. XO had their say about this, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Oct_21/ai_n15728657 They are using even more group power between them against the CableCo's with a new service called, http://movearoo.com/. Essentially this is a new wrapper around a company called www.WhiteFence.com, and is powered by WhiteFence. That said, the Wi-Fi industry IMO is heading down the same path unless the alleged thousands of Wireless providers, big and small all get together under a common effort. This goes without saying that the vendor's themselves get with it as well. I'll assume there is enough purchasing power to make a difference, that could effect how companies view their relationships with the wireless industry. Prior to my ISP life, I came from the Independent automotive service industry, dealing in replacement parts and service spanning some 30 years. I can honestly tell you if were not for the trade associations in every state, you may not be able to purchase replacement parts or take your auto to a neighborhood service center. We fought for many years in keeping open trade in automotive service industry. Even when your car was going electronic and computerized, the automakers tried keeping us out of the game. But, our purchasing power with the tool companies and replacement parts industries, provided us with a significant amount of leverage in keeping the big automakers from locking us out within their own monopoly. Trade associations can make a world of difference, but only when everyone joins in. And there is NO excuse, NONE, ZIPPO, NADA for even a one-man shop or mom & pop shops from joining WISPA. We had thousands of independent auto centers from one-man operations and up joining in on supporting our efforts to keep their livelihoods as safe as possible. I will got out here and say it. There is NO excuse not to support WISPA, NONE! So for all of you on this general list not supporting WISPA, you are losing out on an opportunity to make your livelihood last and support your families for years to come. $25 a month is a small price to pay for some representation in a industry that is supporting yourself and families. I am sure you can find that much on wasted expenses every month. It is also time for WISPA to come to grips with what they have accomplished over the past year and stop walking over eggs shells, thinking that you may hurt someone's feelings. STOP working for FREE! It is my opinion, that even though WISPA is a trade association, albeit a 503(c)6, it is still a business. A business that needs capital to operate for the benefit of the members. And a business that should be working for those members and be paid for their efforts. A business that continues to operate on a volunteer basis will most likely have a hard time taking it to the next level. I feel that the current WISPA membership and those to come, deserve a governing board that can eventually work fulltime in building this association like they are their own business. I see no issues with bringing on an Executive director with an extensive network or company, to kick start the momentum needed to drive WISPA to the next level, thus having the BOD be responsible for that management. This would allow even the current BOD to participate at a level within their own time capacities. In closing, as a vendor member, I take it very personally when in supporting WISPA I offer a fully-paid 1-year membership to WISPA and the recipient of that could care less. At the last ISPCON show in Chicago, I was glad to see the turn out at the WISPA exchange and was going to add a few more memberships, but I sank back into my seat after seeing the reception of the first free membership be that of "so what". Let alone a thanks for it. Respectfully, Frank Muto President FSM Marketing Group, Inc. www.SecureEmailPlus.com 630-258-7422 - Direct ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > I'd argue that FCC does not have the right to pass judgement on one's > management of their network, and recently spoke to several house commmittees > on that topic. > However, Provisions are required to make palyers pay nice with each other. > You are right it is not just about Bit toerrent and VOIP. What about Email? > > What happens when a large carrier decides who they will and wonl;t accept > Email from? What if the sender did have a violation at one time, but it was > then cured? > How long can one provider hold a grudge over another? > I can share a recent example, where there was a legitimate violation, the > violation was responsibly cured immeidately, but the grudge left my ISP > unable to send their ISP mail for 4 months. > It took a lot of bad PR and complaints to get it fixed. The problem is the > one ISP didn't want to enable methods for other ISPs to contact them. There > was no obligation to help fix the problems preventing the other ISP's > legitimate Email delivery. Nor was there any financial benefit to doing so. > > My point is ISP should be required to make mechanisms available to be > contacted by otehr ISPs, to work out disputes. Sorta liek Part 90, an > obligation to cooperate. So false conclusions aren;t made that cause the > smaller weaker ISP to be irrversibly harmed. > > Martins war against Comcast is a necessary war. It sets the precidence that > these Netetrality blocking won't expand as a strategic advanatage to harm > their competitors. > > What would happen to your Email company, If tommorrow, COMCAST deicded to no > longer accept your Email? Well, you might win, as you are now affiliated > with a goliath like Google. But if it occured 2 years ago, when it was just > Postini, what would have been the outcome? > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 11:31 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking > > >> Martin is on his high horse again about Net Neutrality. Most of this stems >> from the 2005 Madison River BS when they were >> blocking VOIP and in Oct 2007 when Comcast was blocking BitTorrent. Both >> parties have since then reached an agreement to work >> together. >> >> Martin some how thinks the FCC "principles" of NN are law and that he, >> (not the FCC is, my own emphasis added) "ready, >> willing and able," to prevent broadband internet service providers from >> irrationally interfering with their subscribers' >> internet access. >> http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSN2525077120080225 >> >>>From the article referenced by Larry ; >> "FCC commissioners have said on several occasions that the Internet policy >> statement is not enforceable, and the law is very >> clear on that basic point," wrote Joe Waz, senior vice president of >> external affairs for Comcast. "The policy statement is >> not a set of rules. It doesn't have any binding effect. And the FCC has >> never adopted rules in this area." >> >> "The Supreme Court and Congress have made it clear that a federal agency >> like the FCC can act either through rules or a >> complaint processes," Ammori responded in a blog post. "It's astounding >> that a company with an army of high-priced lawyers >> would even try to dispute this, as it is a basic fact taught on day one of >> any administrative law class." >> >> But Congress has said otherwise when it comes to taking it from "policy" >> to law. Two laws have since been killed. >> >> 1. The Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 would have >> prohibited the use of admission control to determine >> network traffic priority. The legislation was approved by the House >> Judiciary committee but was never taken for vote, >> therefore failed to become law. >> >> 2. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006 >> was introduced in the US House of Representatives, >> referencing the principles of the FCC and authorizing fines up to $750,000 >> for infractions. It passed full House of >> Representatives failed to become law when it was filibustered in the >> Senate. >> >> The FCC IMO has not met their ancillary jurisdiction powers for what they >> feel they can do to Comcast. This whole NN debate >> has matters of opinion on both sides of the issue and should be debated >> openly for public review and comment. >> >> Internet access is one thing, how about email and websites maxing out >> their limits? Am I as a host provider for these >> services, not allowed to shut down an account for going over a mailbox >> limit, or a website that goes over their bandwidth use >> or storage allocation? I can and do shut down accounts for overages after >> providing sufficient notices to the customer, as >> per their AUP, TOS and billing agreements. >> >> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over all the bit-content passing on the >> Internet network or control of a providers management >> of network resources? >> >> >> >> >> Frank Muto >> www.SecureEmailPlus.com >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 10:48 AM >> Subject: [WISPA] Report: FCC to Punish Comcast Over Web Blocking >> >> >>> Looks like the FCC make take some action in enforcing its Net Neutrality >>> "Policies" >>> >>> >>> >>> See: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2325396,00.asp >>> >>> >>> >>> Depending on the scope of their ruling, this could have a significant >>> impact >>> on how WISPs can control traffic on their own networks. >>> >>> >>> >>> Larry Yunker >>> >>> Network Consultant >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
