This business about "winning" and "losing"...

For me, "winning" is about being in charge of my life and my business.   Who 
has veto power over what I choose to do?   Me.   That's winning.

Losing:   When someone else has veto power over any decision I make. 
Example, the FCC decides which aspects of my business I can control, and 
which aspects THEY control.

This is the precise argument over our nation's founding.   The rebellious 
types decided they'd had it, and they wanted to govern their own lives. 
Now, it's really hard to have a nation, with NO GOVERNMENT,  but that 
doesn't mean that you have to live with a tyrant deciding what powers to 
exercise.    We gave government limited powers, and everything else IS UP TO 
US.   Government does not get to decide what additional powers it has.   It 
does not get to "reinterpret" the establishing contract ( Constitution) for 
itself.   It has never been given that power.   No branch of government is 
delegated "interpretation" power of the Constitution, by the Constitution, 
for instance.   It stands on its own, with plain and obvious language anyone 
can understand.   Not even the Supreme Court.   Don't believe me?   Read the 
Constitution.

In a microcosm, this is my point of view.    Neither Congress nor the FCC 
has any statutory authority in the Constitution to require you to do SQUAT, 
unless your business is somehow "commerce between the states".   And in that 
regard, it is still limited to the ability to override state policy toward 
commerce with ANOTHER STATE.   Just because you buy internet in state 1 and 
sell it in state 2 does not mean that Congress now owns you.  It just means 
that Congress can overrule any rules state 1 or 2 makes about what you do.

When we take the attitude that it is inevitable that we are "regulated" as 
an industry, we have utterly forgotten the legal foundation of both OUR 
individual rights, our rights as business entities, and the statutory 
limitations of government.

It's like establishing a contract between you and someone else, say, hiring 
a secretary, who, over time, decides that you are subservient to the 
employee you pay, and starts making your decisions for you.   You, legally, 
would fire this person, and that's the end of that.   Congress and the FCC 
simply do not have the authority to do many things they want to do.   We 
should be bound, by civic duty, and by citizenship, to simply say "No".   It 
is US who should decide if we WANT any federal laws on the matter, and if 
so, we ask for them, and if we decide they can't do anything useful, we say 
"no" and send them packing.   No, not the people who want to control their 
neighbor's business, but those who own the business decide.

We are in an "outside of the law" situation.   Both Congress and the various 
agencies have decided for themselves what powers to exercise, far in excess 
of their constitutional limitations.    And, for whatever reason, we have a 
significant segment of the population who likes this situation, of having an 
unlimited and unrestricted government controlling them.   Why "unlimited"? 
Well, if you specify what your employee is empowered to do, and instead, 
your employee takes upon themselves full control over your enterprise... 
Then the agreement between you is broken.    Either you assert your 
contractual standards... or there are no standards.   Either you enforce 
your employee's behavior, to contractual limitations... Or your employee 
just does WHATEVER he or she wants.    It really is an all or nothing 
situation.

If you do not assert your dominance, which exists as a matter of contractual 
law, then you have lost all authority to object to anything.   You cannot, 
as a matter of consistency say "I Object to the breaking of this part of the 
contract between you and me" and at the same time, refuse to enforce most 
other provisions, and have any logical leg to stand on.    If it's not all 
valid, then who gets to decide what is and what isn't?

I've been called "radical" and all sorts of things for this thinking.   But 
for the life of me, I cannot understand why.   There's nothing radical about 
insisting that your contractual rights be respected.   We have them, and 
they're contained in the Constitution.  And it says that WE, as the people, 
control our government, FULLY, except for approximately 36 specific, 
delegated, enumerated responsibilities ( the number is debateable, what they 
are isn't), and we have a process called "amendment" that gives us power to 
both further delegate and to rescind.

I want that contract respected and honored.    How is that radical?

And why do so many of you object?   It's all about law, and contract.

We as businesses operate on agreements.   We have agreements with our 
customers.   We do x, they do y.   We're only in business so long as that 
specific relationship stays intact.    If we don't perform and / or, they 
don't pay, then it all falls apart.    If your provider fails to provide for 
you, and yet wants to be paid, you consider yourself ill used.

Fundamentally, HOW do we maintain any valid contract, if the one that gives 
us the power to engage in those contracts... Is simply ignored?   Everyone's 
free to do whatever the heck they want.    And that's why we're in such deep 
doo-doo in this country.

I keep being told this is "politics".    In some aspects it is, but it is an 
absolute essential aspect of being in business and is inseparable from any 
other aspect of our business.



++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/

Reply via email to