But why wait for the FCC? Why not be pro-active? We already know our concerns and we could at least list the ways we would like to see this type of thing designed. To just react to something isn't being the leader. We should be at the front of this thing. At least that's what I feel I should do myself. The entire idea had to be started by someone, why not jump in and be part of it?
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality David, Regarding WISPA plans to adopt any official position on Network Neutrality...that process is always active but it does have a number of steps. 1. We've got to see what rules the FCC actually proposes. 2. We need to get general agreement (probably a majority view since getting complete agreement between all independent-thinking WISPA members is a darn near impossibility) on what WISPA's official position should be. 3. We need to either a) wait for the FCC to ask for opinions or (if our beliefs are compelling enough) b) go to the FCC and make an Ex Parte presentation to selected FCC employees to explain our position and what we recommend the FCC do. 4. Wait and see what the FCC does after we express our opinion or make our presenation and then decide if further action on our part is needed. Steps 1 and 2 (above) are already in play. Watching the FCC's proposals and listening to WISPA member opinions and ideas is happening as we participate in this discussion. Additional work will be done by WISPA's FCC Committee to refine WISPA's position and either write it up (Step 3) or prepare an Ex Parte presentation. Funding to prepare either a written or an in-person FCC presentation comes from the dues of WISPA members therefore it would be beneficial if those participating in this discussion who are not WISPA members would choose to do the right thing and become WISPA members. As the Chair of WISPA's FCC Committee, I will be participating in the preparation of any FCC Comments that WISPA officially makes. While I appreciate all input, I'm obligated to give more weight to the views of WISPA members compared to the views of those who are not yet WISPA members. jack David E. Smith wrote: Curtis Maurand wrote: I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're saying (or at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the peanut gallery). Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official position on this? I'm not saying "net neutrality is bad," because I adore the principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't pass some overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger operators, that makes it difficult or impossible for smaller outfits (like mine!) to keep things running smoothly. David Smith MVN.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
