While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer 1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to wake up and go pickup the kids.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK <rea...@muddyfrogwater.us> wrote: > No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the power. It > is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption". > > I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. > > As far as I’m concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn > well NOT comply. > > And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to > stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know > when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the > government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy > 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > From: Joe Fiero > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless > > It’s good to see all our efforts pay off. > > > > > > > > REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 > > WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt > Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful > content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, > senior agency officials said Monday. > > Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with > the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, > but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and are expected > to vote in favor of the rules. > > Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing > Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based > on Internet usage. > > The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, Genachowski said in > a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of > development than terrestrial Internet service. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
