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? > > It did. Long ago. I supported WISPA until someone spilled the >beans.
What "beans"? This not an answer. It is more paranoia. My question, very specifically, is "When did some that was officially representing WISPA go to DC and say anything even close to 'We want to be regulated'"? If you have a REAL reference to a REAL person with even questionable evidence, then I'll give this point up and will be able to see SOME of the reason for your displeasure. Until then, I'll just assume it is pure paranoia and disdain for any disagreement with your opinion. >Hmmm... Allowing the people to use a public commodity. Wow. I >feel so privileged. NOT! No, the knotheads in DC OWE US THE USE >OF IT. Yes. Like they "owe" us the right to use the highways. And, yet, there are regulations to THAT, too. Do you want all speed limits removed as well? How about the regulations that require our vehicles to have lights when we drive at night? >Wow, what a strange concept. When did we forget, we're the boss >and the owners, they're the designated stewards? Correct. Here's the dictionary definition of "steward": "1. a person who manages another's property or financial affairs; one who administers anything as the agent of another or others." I'm assuming that's the definition you had in mind. Being that the spectrum belongs to "us" and they are "stewarding" it for us, does that not give them the power...even RESPONSIBILITY...to set some regulations for it's use? Give me a break! >Wow. Effective and reasonable ideas could have been dreamed up and >proposed and made into law by now. But nope, we're still >determined that pounding a square peg into a round hole "just has >to be". Still on this? CALEA applies to us. If you wish to ignore the simple facts as they really are, does that mean that all of us should just go along? If you wish to propose another tack, then you should (as I suggested 2 years ago) approach your congressman and get them to draft the laws. But then laws are "regulations", so THAT approach is not gonna work. Hmmm...we're kinda in a vicious circle. Guess you're gonna have to help with this one. >>>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? > >Hmmm... words have a specific meaning, I said precisely what I >meant. When the attitude that the smaller players need to go away >is shaken out of WISPA, that will be a good thing. Don't get me started on the "words have specific meaning" direction. What you claim regarding the "attitude" of smaller players needing to go away has NO foundation in reality. It is, perhaps your own interpretation of events, but WISPA is comprised of MOSTLY smaller WISPs. There are WISPs who are just getting started all the way up to multi-thousand players. Not only do we welcome them all, but we are trying to represent some really varied needs. Sometimes, the smaller players are better served by our actions and sometimes it is the larger, HOWEVER, the industry at large is best served when both classes exist. In most cases, the actions we have undertaken serve BOTH groups. What we hope for is to help bring about an environment that assists ALL WISPs to grow and prosper. Part of that mission involves addressing regulatory change. >I'm just recalling a specific thread on this list that's now 2 or 3 >years old, about how this industry will be much better and more >representable in Washington when it is "mature" and not a whole lot >of smaller players. Someone who is influential in WISPA was the >source of this attitude, too. I would be willing to bet you can't find this anywhere. Your recollection MUST be wrong. Again, post some evidence that your recollection is accurate. You can't just throw out defamatory statements like this without SOME basis in fact. The archives for the private members list is here: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/private/wisp/ And the archives for the public list is here: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Both have archives back to 2004. >This particular person seemed to be embarrassed to consider >representing this industry as having mom and pop type members. If you plan to mention a name, I'd be careful. Slander is one of those regulated types of speech. If you can't back up what you say, it's best to keep your mouth shut. After all, it's only slander when it isn't true. I don't believe you can prove it, though, because it isn't true. >If you're trying to convince me that DC is my friend, or that >government can be trusted in the slightest... good luck There's a >whole world history to prove that notion the b iggest folly ever >committed by man. I didn't suggest that DC is a "friend". And I can think of plenty of "follies" that would be bigger. >It really would not matter. There's sufficient numbers of people >who brand anything said by me as wild ranting, so... Let them >think that. Maybe I'll just add some fuel to the fire for my own >entertainment's sake. History shows this to be USUALLY true. It's one thing to argue your point, but the WAY you try to submit your ideas comes off this way. Not sure I can think of more than a dozen posts you've made that didn't fit that bill. >What, if we fell behind the world in euthanasia, we'd need Congress >to bail us out with some federal guns and death policy? Cripes, >what IS this rot? What has this to do with broadband? It's a real leap to even connect the two. There are MANY things that broadband enables that ARE economic benefits. Education is one example. Access to affordable broadband enables people of ALL ages to continue learning technology skills that are beginning to dominate our social and business cultures. I am not here to promote the benefits of broadband to you, so I won't go through the whole litany of arguments. >I see a needed service to people who need it. NOT EVERYONE NEEDS >IT. NOT MANY BENEFIT MUCH FROM IT! Seriously! Not many benefit from it? This seems to say that you are either providing a philantropic service or you just don't understand economics beyond your direct line of sight. Again, I won't go through all the benefits that access to broadband bring, but you should really try to look at a bigger picture than just your small view of the world. >To think that abject buffoons in DC can somehow determine that >broadband is going to cure our country's economic ills is beyond >stupid. It's mindless. It has it's place, it has its value, but >to think that somehow it is or should be an issue so critical that >we need our government to step in and blow taxpayer money on >studying, subsidizing, and ultimately screw with the markets to >"fix" it is beyond stupid. This nation is NOT SUFFERING A LACK OF >BROADBAND. Again, look beyond your own small view of the world. This is not about making access to stolen torrents of some porn movie better. The need for a national policy is about creating an environment that facilitates a growing technology acuity among our nation's residents that once again makes THIS country strong in the technology sector. It is about bringing educational opportunities to places where they either do not exist or are too expensive to be reasonably accessed. It is about providing better access to healthcare information for our nation's doctors and other health providers. It is about NEW technologies that don't even exist, yet, that will, in ways we can't even imagine, make all our lives better in some way. I don't have a pollyanna view of this whole issue. I don't believe that broadband access will bring about a utopian society OR that it will be a single cure-all for a failing economy. I do, however, believe that a national policy makes sense because it gives a common sense of direction to both manufacturers AND providers. It may be unrealistic today for you to be able to provide more than X amount of bandwidth to any one subscriber and it may be that some (or all) of us has to rethink our current network designs, but I believe that it IS possible to stretch from where we are currently to where we SHOULD be in the future. For some, that may mean subsidies (I'm not "for" or "against" subsidies) and for some it may just mean waiting for the manufacturers to get onboard. It may mean that companies like AT&T who has done it's best to stifle growth with unfair pricing policies and unfair access policies will have to change THEIR approach. It MAY even mean that our government will own a Tier 1 network. I cannot predict the outcome of the policy discussions. I DO know that whatever they are, I feel MUCH more comfortable with a man like Rick Harnish sitting at the head of our organization participating in the discussion. Having a seat at the table just gives us a voice. We may get NOTHING out of the deal, but we are guaranteed to get nothing if we don't sit at the table. SO, as you said, I'd suggest you either "lead, follow or get out of the way". -- ******************************************************************** * 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/
