I agree and in a roundabout way I guess that's what I'm saying. As a group, come up with a solid and agreed upon position and try to come up with a set of guidelines that would provide both net neutrality and economic sense.
That's what I mean by being pro-active instead of being re-active. As a group, 100%. Or as close as one can get with this bunch! :) -----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 2:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Robert, Being pro-active can be good when it's constructive. WISPA's position needs to be developed through a discussion process otherwise it's just the position of one person and may not be representative of the position of a majority of WISPA members however it appears that Julius Genachowski must have been reading your mind because today he announced a brand new website called Open Internet.gov <www.openinternet.gov>. You could go there as an individual and start contributing your constructive suggestions immediately. jack Robert West wrote: > 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: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] 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: wireless@wispa.org > > 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 jun...@ask-wi.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
