Faisal,
If I understand history correctly, there was a time when the country
was best served by a monopoly. In it's infancy fierce competition wouldn't have
led to a strong nationwide phone system. But then times changed and the country
was best served by the divestiture (breakup) of Ma Bell. I believe a parallel
is developing countries where they're best served by private industry coming in
and investing large sums of money to get an industry started, then over time
the country decides it's best served by buying out the investors and
nationalizing the company. Sometimes this leads to mismanagement and financial
troubles for the industry so the national government sells the industry or
parts of it back to the private sector. Sometimes that cycle continues with the
national government buying or seizing the industry back when it's profitable
and laying golden eggs, and sells it after they've picked it bare.
The point being that what was in the best interest of the country or
industry in the past has gone through many stages over periods of time and what
was needed at the time varied. There may or may not be parallels and lessons to
be learned from history which are applicable to where we are today.
The founding fathers had the wisdom to see that the best balance was
the least amount of government regulation and intervention possible with the
most freedom. The hard part is deciding what's the least amount of government
intervention possible. I believe the founding fathers realized that the
government would be incapable of making that decision because of it's vested
interest.
It's amazing to me that the founding fathers were selfless enough to
form a government in which they didn't place themselves in the center to be
ensconced in power for life.
Greg
On Jul 16, 2011, at 8:55 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> Well...again you have to go further back in history...before telecom
> regulation ..it was a Ma Bell monopoly ......and without regulation...there
> is a very good chance that it will again become a Ma Bell monopoly or maybe a
> duopoly...
>
> Let's not forget that...
>
> Faisal
>
> On Jul 16, 2011, at 9:03 PM, RickG <rgunder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
>> allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
>> internet access and other communication services"
>>
>> With all due respect, it's exactly the mindset that government "allows" us
>> to be in business that IS the problem. Telecom Act or no, regulation or no,
>> there should be no question that we are allowed to make a living the way we
>> want to regardless.
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Faisal Imtiaz <fai...@snappydsl.net> wrote:
>> I am going to address your points backwards:-
>>
>> --------You wrote -------
>> And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
>> advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
>> particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our enemy. The
>> current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our friend, for
>> any way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for us and
>> the country. STop talking political party talking points, and get some
>> reality.
>> ---------------------------------
>>
>> We have been wireline ISP's first, since 2000, if you really believe
>> what you wrote (above) then you are truly mis-informed...
>> The simple facts are ... it is Regulation (1996 Telecom Act) that
>> allowed us (ISP's) to be able to go into the business of providing
>> internet access and other communication services ..... and it is THE
>> DEREGULATION over the past 5 years, that has been KILLING the ISP's off.
>> You forget, that if you don't have the ability to connect to other
>> networks in a fair and equitable manner, you are not going to be able to
>> continue in this business.
>> Get a grip of reality and the full picture.. you are playing with a DUAL
>> EDGE sword here...
>>
>> ---------------You wrote-----------------
>>
>> You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to influence and
>> the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to obstruct X or
>> advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle. They should be TACTICS
>> to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the basis of its
>> soundness and validity.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Not sure where you are coming up with this from ...however each and
>> every one has his own right to interpret the events .
>>
>> ------------You wrote -----------------------------
>>
>> Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan. Not even ideological.
>> It's simple straightforward business principles. Principle Numero Uno is
>> "have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing convoluted or
>> difficult about that.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> hehe.. when you start off a paragraph with "this administration" or do
>> a follow up with "the previous administration".. that is as partisan as
>> one can get....
>>
>> I agree with your 'Principle Numero Uno', but you are harking at the
>> wrong organization.. it is not in WISPA's charter or mission, maybe
>> should be a member of the SBA association, or FISPA or COMPTEL ... but
>> then again you will have to get your head straight about how the US Gov.
>> has operated for the last 200 years....
>>
>> WISPA's mission has been to address issues related to Wireless, (not
>> business, not telephone service, not hosted services, etc etc)...
>> While I understand your frustration with the Gov., and do agree with
>> some of your points, but what you keep putting forward on the WISPA
>> forums is more like 'Don Quixote Tilting at the windmills"
>>
>>
>> Faisal Imtiaz
>> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>>
>>
>> On 7/16/2011 12:59 AM, MDK wrote:
>> > A "plan of action"? If I said "this is what WISPA should do" and laid it
>> > out in detail, all you'd do is say "who are you? Why should we hacve to do
>> > what you say?"
>> >
>> > Frankly, I have no idea why you're having difficulty. You see, when you
>> > have proper business principles as your guiding mechanism, what you should
>> > do is crystal clear. Nobody needs to write out a plan of action, it
>> > becomes self evident - you always advocate FOR the proper and best thing.
>> > And, after being consistent, year after year, and when stuff like this
>> > comes
>> > up, which becomes so blatantly obviously a result of failure to follow true
>> > principle, again, nothing is obscure or difficult.
>> >
>> > Additionally, I said absolutely NOTHING partisan. Not even ideological.
>> > It's simple straightforward business principles. Principle Numero Uno is
>> > "have the freedom to be in business", and there is nothing convoluted or
>> > difficult about that.
>> >
>> > You seem to be interested in mere expediency. That's what's gotten us to
>> > this crisis point, the idea of managing the favoritism, the cronyism, etc,
>> > to favor you, or at least not hurt you too much. That's what's BEEN going
>> > on. Had we (WISPA) been looking for and actively seeking allies who would
>> > with us, say with many voices, but one message - "hands off, and be a
>> > steward of what's entrusted to you", I think the landscape would look
>> > different. The word "steward" is loaded. It means one entrusted to manage
>> > things for the benefit OF THE OWNER, that's us. The FCC and Congress are
>> > managing for the benefit of the federal treasury and the donations to
>> > campaigns - which is the polar opposite of managed for the good of the
>> > people.
>> >
>> > In the previous post, I wrote an analogy, one where the city effectively
>> > puts every service and business up for licensure at auction. It takes no
>> > imagination at all to see that the city coffers and the winning bidder are
>> > the beneficiaries and the people are the losers. Spectrum is a public or
>> > national resource held in trust by the federal government. Auctions to
>> > the
>> > highest bidder do not benefit anyone but the monopoly holder and the
>> > treasury, by creating monopolies or very limited competition. Again, we
>> > as
>> > consumers and businessmen are the losers. Imagine if there were enough
>> > spectrum delegated so that if us WISP's wanted to be mobile broadband
>> > providers we could, as well as cellular, or even video / audio
>> > broadcasters.
>> > Instead, such services have been delegated a minute slice of available
>> > spectrum, keeping up the price of the auctions - and the number of
>> > competitors down.
>> >
>> > Why? It is in the interest of politicians to separate us from our money.
>> > But their REAL job is to defend us keeping it. There are NOW myriad
>> > political allies to spread this message, to change the discussion from
>> > "whom
>> > to screw out of lots of money" to "what is the best policy for the people
>> > and keep competition alive?" And, that's the message that is NOT being
>> > advocated by WISPA, and it should be.
>> >
>> > You seem to think that the answer is to find the right pol to influence and
>> > the right committee members to lobby and the right allies to obstruct X or
>> > advance Y, but those are expediency, not principle. They should be
>> > TACTICS
>> > to a principled purpose, one that will attract others, on the basis of its
>> > soundness and validity.
>> >
>> > And lastly, about the FCC, the last administration's appointees were
>> > advocates for free markets and for competition and deregulation. Not
>> > particularly effective ones, but at least they were not our enemy. The
>> > current administration's people at the FCC are IN NO WAY our friend, for
>> > any
>> > way, manner, or purpose, and everything they want is bad for us and the
>> > country. STop talking political party talking points, and get some
>> > reality.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
>> > 541-969-8200 509-386-4589
>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------
>> > From: "Faisal Imtiaz"<fai...@snappydsl.net>
>> > Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 8:01 PM
>> > To: "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Legislative Situation Is Dire
>> >
>> >> Errr....... and your point is ?
>> >>
>> >> Ok, I am a nobody... I have seen / read your emails, not once can I say
>> >> I have been able to pick out a proposed specific, action or a plan of
>> >> action from you ....
>> >>
>> >> My friend you and I can agree or dis-agree on concepts all day long...
>> >> but the point still remains ... I for myself still am not able to
>> >> ascertain what exactly is it that you have been proposing ? ( I
>> >> understand the anger at all of the powers to be.... part...and I beg to
>> >> differ when you start blaming ..'this administration'..... I personally
>> >> have been watching and following the FCC stuff, on sliding slopes, for
>> >> the last 12 years..that according to my calculations has been multiple
>> >> administrations.....)
>> >>
>> >> You clear your head, and try to articulate your position in a
>> >> non-partisan manner, which can be understood by the general public, and
>> >> put forward a reasonably understandable plan of action .... I guarantee
>> >> you, you will have many here who would be willing to listen and follow
>> >> your lead..
>> >>
>> >> But if you continue expressing yourself in the convoluted manner, as in
>> >> your email below....then there is a very high probability that these
>> >> will continue to be chalked off as "tirades" and "rants".
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> :)
>> >>
>> >> Faisal Imtiaz
>> >> Snappy Internet& Telecom
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -RickG
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/
