++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ <insert witty tagline here> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Article
> >>We're all taxpayers, get off my back >> already! > > I'm a little confused on your response. > Nobody is on your back. We are just discussing possible point of views on > Broadband policy. Sorry, I thought you were advocating we start pumping Washington for grants or loans or something. > > I'm also not exactly clear what you are calling the "terrible" idea. Defining broadband higher than we can affordably deliver. > > Joining the NBS table for debate? > Raising minimul requirements for what is considered "Broadband"? > Or Raising it to a level that disqualifies ILEC DSL? > Or trying to incourage investment in WISPs? I've put every dollar I can spare for the last 4.5 years in my WISP. Are you suggesting that now that I'm "here" I need to do it all over again? Or are you talking about playing definition games so a handful of those who are good at beaurocracy can get their hands on a bigger share of the taxpayer's blood? My "competition" used venture capital money in the late 90's to file for every possible dollar of grants or loans. They didn't use much of it, I'm told, but they did make sure nobody else could. Are you suggesting that this game gets played again, so that those with lawyers and paperwork pushers can get money as opposed to us who just build networks where people need service? > > The first thing to understand is what could be an advantageous purpose to > change definition of "broadband" to a higher standard. I suppose. Let's also figure out how to NOT shoot ourselves in the foot. > The second is figuring out what that number should be to NOT disqualify > WISPs. > > I am open to feedback from you, on what your opinions are, so we can > decide > on a WISPA policy for those questions. > But "terrible idea" doesn't really help us define a possition does it? I already stated what would be a great thing to advocate. Better tax treatment and some other stuff, like gaurantees of having all mandates lifted. You and I and the rest of us can do just fine and dandy witout RUS money or anything else. We can't survive the helping hands from DC. > > Are you saying it should stay the way it is now? I can tell you that isn't > going to happen. > There is a huge force working to change the definition, and it will likely > be changed. > Our only hope is to influence it to be a number that will be the lease > harmful to WISPs. Maybe we should just have a consistent, intelligent voice that says "small business is the REAL answer!". We are ALL small businesses by every definition (perhaps a handful are too big, but I'm not sure), and that we are consistently doing daily what these money grubbing fools can't figure out how to do. Jumping into the pigpen and rooting at the trough, in return for industry and market manipulation just seems so incredibly self-defeating. > > I agree that raising the definition of Broadband has little benefit to > WISPs, but we do not live in a world ruled by WISPs. > We have to fight for evey little thing we can get, and it will likely be a > compromise. What I pointed out was one possible benefit of disqualifying > DSL. It seems terribly unlikely to me that areas once "served" can be redesignated as "unserved" by any sort of definition change. Especially when you have the might of the telcos in opposition to that idea. It seems to be self defeating as an industry to try to play the same game as the cable ops and telcos. We need to have an original idea, an original thought, one which makes the big guys look clumsy and inept to try to play. I realize we, and I include myself, haven't got squat for experience in lobbying this way, but I have learned that playing the big boys game and by their rules is completely self defeating. We need to change the game, or else create a whole new game. > > I had a real world situation that applied to my logic. For example, lets > look at the RUS grants. RUS requires that a WISP find an unserved area. So > that left 3 communities in my state. > So I spent 6 month prepairing my grant application. But the rules are, > even > ifan area was underserved at teh time of a grant application, if the area > becomes served before the Grant is issued (like a 1 year period after > worlds) it will disqualify your grant. And technically anywhere there is > a > physical phone line, it is possible for an RBOC to call an area "served" > by > Broadband, after a few hours of upgrades. Telephone lines are EVERYWHERE. > There is no requirement to have availabilty to ALL homes in an area to > call > it served, nor a percent build out plan. In our case, Verizon decided to > build out and provide Broadband to 2 homes, in order to disqualify our > area > as underserved. It didn't happen exactly like that, but that is the > summerized version. > > My point is that if any Grant programs were made targeted only to > underserved areas, it is 100% in the control of the RBOC to disqualify > that > grant from occuring, based on the current definition of "underserved" and > "broadband". > > Sure RUS grants and loans have been issued, but it was a gift by the RBOC, > to allow those grants to be given by RUS, simply because it was simply > either off teh RBOC's radar, or an area the RBOC had no desire to serve. > > Be aware that many people on the Coalition would have liked to see > 20-100mbps minimum speeds for the definition. They probably think 10mbps > was > a compromise. As there is clearly a focus to incourage legislation that > fosters Fiber Optic expansion, that will give the largest benefit to > consumers, and have the most longevity into the century. No, it has the largest benefits to the people who want the big dollars given to them to put in fiber. > > I think it would be a HUGE victory to bring these guys back into the > capabilty of WISPs, into the 3mbps range. Atleast 1.5 mbps range. > > However, if you think it should be less than that, its going to take a > really good arguement, to keep it that way. And if a position is just > unreasonablee to compromise, it will jsut be ignored, as the other > lobbying > forces are stronger. WISPs don;t want to be painted as the providers that > hold down innovation and the consumer experience. I say just paint the guys wanting money as the "new auto manufacturers" and they're just angling for dollars. No idea if that's gonna work for the guys in DC, that's just how I see it. > > The other option is to suggest the branding of a new name. For example, > "HD > broadband", or "Broadband2" and incourage gants and tax incentives for > people that build those newer faster technologies. But that also, I think > would be a bad deal. We don;t want to do anything that incourages > incentives for others that would not include WISPs. It would be best to > find a happy medium that would include WISPs, and partially meet the needs > of consumer advocates. No, start calling it "Hi revenue broadband" vs "affordable broadband". I think we could lay out a VERY good case that the consumer is not highly benefitted by rising broadband prices, even at higher speeds. Wasn't it a year ago, we were discussing stories in the news of studies that showed that price was already a significant factor in the adoption of broadband? I know by experience there are plenty of people who will not pay an extra $40/mo for an internet connection. I've sold "broadband" to people who have yet to use it that way. Their sole use continues to be email and bill paying. The only reason they pay me more than dialup, is that the dialup was unreliable. I think we could very easily make an excellent case that the vast majority of internet users are not benefitted by higher than 1 or 2 meg speeds. And that redefinition of the standard upwards a long ways will in the end tend to remove lower priced options and result in slowing adoption by consumers, not increasing it. I would argue that unless the case can be made that 1mbit is inadequate for 90 percent of users, then the real challenge to expansion of broadband is access - something much more affordably done by us WISP's - and price - again, a challenge we're fully up to. > However, I'm going to stop there, as this is really a topic best for the > Member's List, not the open public. > Perhaps you're right. What interest is this to the public? Best off just manipulate product offerings and markets and get thier money from Congress, rather than in the mail each month... /sarcasm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
