+1 no corporate welfare!
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Forbes Mercy <forbes.me...@wabroadband.com > wrote: > Chris, > > Let me reason this out with you and Jack. I've always felt WISPA is too > conservative in simply making filings and a rare visit. I've felt that > education of our Congressional members has helped them remember us when > staff reviews new laws. What we haven't done is bear any pressure or seek > to make our issues into the public consciousness. > > This is an election year, a rare moment when small issues become campaign > promises (whether kept or not). I will only touch on politics for a > moment, keep in mind a Democrat FCC Chairman is proud that he converted USF > to CAF and seeks to expand it's revenue by adding broadband. The > Republicans are screaming for 'no new tax' issues, just last night Ryan > called out Corporate Welfare. Here we are with this huge outdated tax and > the FCC wants to make it bigger by taxing a whole new industry. The main > points we can make are: > > 1) Congress said no tax on the Internet and now the FCC wants to go around > them and tax the Internet anyway > 2) 100% of the new tax would go to corporate welfare not directly helping > a single tax payer, it's socialized Internet > 3) The Telco industry isn't even a Broadband company, they are a telephone > company no more than cable is an Internet company. At least cable got > investors to build their networks, telco wants the government to pay for > all of their expansion. > 4) The cost of Wireless to expand to areas is a fraction of the cost of > wireline but is being completely left out. > > I think a properly briefed politician could get excited about helping to > push our agenda, make it public and dramatically raise the profile of our > discussion. Imagine a politician who took a pledge of no new taxes having > to take on the burden of having approved a new tax in CAF. There is > nothing radical about taking advantage of opportunities and the election > cycle seems primed for our issues. Politics is always a radical and risky > proposition but no one here has yet to say how this will hurt us other to > say it's risky. I'm all ears. > > Forbes > > On 8/29/2012 11:37 AM, chris cooper wrote: > > I wouldn’t do that in the pre election climate. It seems like it could > be taken a couple of different ways, any one of which might alienate 50% of > your customers.**** > > ** ** > > cc**** > > ** ** > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* wireless-boun...@wispa.org > [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org<wireless-boun...@wispa.org>] > *On Behalf Of *Forbes Mercy > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:25 PM > *To:* wireless@wispa.org; fcccommit...@wispa.org > *Subject:* Re: [WISPA] Oh Great take from the poor and give to the rich! > > ** ** > > I wonder if it would benefit us to send a "New Tax Coming to a Constituent > Near You" release where in this era of taxes being waged to pay off debt, a > new tax is being proposed by the FCC to the broadband industry which will > only serve to subsidize the telephone industry with broadband deriving zero > benefit? Instead of defensive it's a pro-active move where politicians > running under a no new taxes platform will have to roll it in. > > I know the FCC wouldn't be thrilled with us but we've felt all along the > USF to CAF conversion was just the FCC helping the Telco industry to do a > hostile takeover of our broadband industry with government aid and we > shouldn't be afraid to say it. > > Forbes > > On 8/28/2012 2:28 PM, Jack Unger wrote: **** > > Throw out that word "tax" and everyone gets all excited but this is really > old news and not really any news at all. Just the transition of the USF > program (subsidies to extend phone service to rural areas) into the CAF > program where the subsidies will now go to extend broadband service to the > boonies. WISPA has made a ton of FCC filings on this already. Most of them > are defensive in nature (preventing WISPs from being overbuilt) but a few > are offensive - trying to open up the possibilities for WISPs that want > subsidies (most don't) to get them. > > jack > > **** > > On 8/28/2012 1:20 PM, Jim Patient wrote:**** > > http://www.ijreview.com/2012/08/13896-fcc-may-soon-tax-internet-service/** > ****** > > ** ****** > > Jim Patient******** > > Link Technologies, Inc.******** > > 314-735-0270 x102******** > > http://wlan1.com ******** > > http://towercoverage.com******** > > http://www.linktechs.net ******** > > **** > **** > > ** ****** > > > > > **** > > _______________________________________________**** > > Wireless mailing list**** > > Wireless@wispa.org**** > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless**** > > > > **** > > -- **** > > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.**** > > Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks"**** > > Serving the WISP Community since 1993**** > > www.ask-wi.com 760-678-5033 jun...@ask-wi.com**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > > **** > > _______________________________________________**** > > Wireless mailing list**** > > Wireless@wispa.org**** > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless**** > > > > > **** > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5231 - Release Date: 08/28/12* > *** > > ** ** > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing > listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5233 - Release Date: 08/29/12 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
<<inline: ATT00001>>
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
