On Thu, 4 Dec 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >And I won't be. I was once and put money into WISPA. When I think >WISPA has the interests of all WISPS in mind when they act, then >I'll financially support it. When WISPA goes to washington DC and >represents to them, that we actually WANT to be regulated, I cannot
When did this ever happen? I mean in the world the rest of us live in...not just yours. You seem to only see the negative aspects of everything that has been done and NONE of the positive impact. NOBODY wants regulation. It is, however, a fact of life in the country we live in. SOME regulation is actually good. For example, there are limits on our "Freedom of speech". Those limits are, for the most part, good. Slander, incitement to riot and sharing of secret information are just some examples. Other limits on this particular freedom are not necessarily good. I won't list them here, because most of them are either religious or political in nature, but you'll be able to think of some examples. The same holds true for other regulations. There are some regulations that are good for WISPs. Just ONE HUGE example are the regulations that govern the FREE use of spectrum under the Part-15 rules. It's funny that I've never heard you go off the deep end about THOSE regulations. Either way, that is one example of a good regulation. In terms of specific impact that WISPA has had that benefits ALL wisp operators (even those like you that don't like regulation) there are 2 MAJOR examples that I will suggest. You are probably the only one "in the room" who will not like them, but then I suspect you are often in that situation. The first example is the most recent HUGE WIN for WISPs in the TVWS debates. I don't know if you noticed, but in the R&O, do a search for "WISPA" and then do a search for "GOOGLE". You'll quickly see that just based on the number of "mentions" that WISPA had a HUGE impact on the ruling. That spectrum is free for you to use UNLICENSED (NOT UNREGULATED), even if you don't support WISPA. Another example is CALEA. I know that in YOUR world, CALEA isn't something that you have to comply with, but the rest of us that live in a world shared by ~300Million other Americans, we DO have to comply. WISPA could have gone to DC and said "this isn't fair", but it would NOT have changed the law. Moving beyond that, we have developed a REAL solution that is very affordable for ANYONE to follow. There is currently no software supporting it, but that is under development and will surface in the near future. One of the reasons WISPA doesn't take the approaches you suggest is that your ideas are SO far out of line with reality that there is no way to meet you on common ground. Perhaps the muddy frogs can, but real people cannot. >When the attitude that "consolidation and shaking out the smaller >players" is a good thing goes away, then there's on more barrier >down. It may not be What's bad about building and selling? You don't like money either? >Sorry, you lost me with that one. Small business and "mom and pop" >are the backbone of our economy and make up a huge segment of all >the jobs in the whole country. Yeah..my "mom and pop" raised me and fed me, but if I can find a way to move my "mom and pop" operation into something bigger, then why is that bad? Look at companies like McDonalds, Wendy's and even WAL-MART. These companies were ALL "mom and pop" operations at one time. Personally, I'd not complain if my business grew to the size of any one of those examples. There are examples just like this in the WISP industry, but I'll leave that as an exercise for you to find. >Every other industry organization unabashedly opposes everything >that costs them or can harm them, but the leadership continues to >insist that somehow playing nice and agreeing to mandates and costs >will buy us favor... All that happens is the mandates and >agreements happen, the regulators change and all the "goodwill" >supposedly bought evaportes, with the precedents and whatnot >remain. Until they understand that Washington DC is NEVER our >friend, never to be trusted, then we're just sheep waiting to get >shorn. This is just not correct. I'm not going to try to correct you on it, but wanted it to be in the archives for anyone who is interested to know that the TRUTH (of which your messages was NOT an example) is available in the archives. >Sorry, that's just my opinion and it's not subject to "revision and >extension". If you were to revise your opinions, how would we all know what we were doing wrong? Please...never change for the sake of us all... >And no, don't tell me to "run for WISPA office". I don't think I've EVER seen anyone ask you for this. Besides, as a non-member you can't. If you decided to join and you think your opinions are held by even a small group of people, and that you CAN convince the other board members and you can have some impact on our policies. >Agitators like myself don't win popularity contests. I'm not sure "agitator" is the right word...It is something of a cop-out, actually. >I prefer poking a stick in the hornets nest, to letting stuff go >along quietly. I've never found that emulating someone else is the >sure-fire way to beat them. That is not conducive to winning >anything. And which part of ANY of your messages posted to any list I've EVER seen you post to actually IS "conducive to winning"? What is it you want to win? If you are attempting to sway opinion, then why not post some legitimate arguments (note the word "legitimate" does not mean the same thing as "wild ranting") and convince people you are right? >So, love me or hate me, but for pity's sakes, grow a spine and act >like real men with original ideas when you go to lobby DC. Personally, I hold neither love NOR hatred for you. >I am firmly convinced you could make a serious impact if you think >outside the box of present conventions. We have already made a "serious impact". You just don't like it because we did so WITHIN the law. >The whole notion of "raising broadband's definition" to justify >federal handouts to industry is so small, so weak, such tired >thinking that surely a better notion can be sold. Umm..what was your idea again? The idea of raising the bar for what is defined as broadband has little to do with "federal handouts". It is the reality that there really IS a problem in this country. We are falling behind in the world. There are things that need to happen at the federal level to get us (the nation) back on track with BB availability. In order to do that, we have to first define broadband. In today's world, 200k is NOT sufficient to be called broadband. But I'm not going to argue this whole point out with you. You wouldn't agree in the end anyway. -- ******************************************************************** * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * ******************************************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
