Chuckle :) You all don't know who Fred is.... :)
He has a weee bit of experience in these matters..... :) I am reading this discussion about Title II and having a dejavu !!! What you all see coming to our door steps in form of Title II via the FCC, is pretty similar to what the we saw about 5 to 10 years ago on the wireline side.. there it was 'de-regulation' or Forbearance from Title II regulations.....It is rather interesting and comical (sarcasm) to see the 'regulatory pendulum' swinging in the opposite direction...I wish there is a way to turn all the arguments presented and accepted by the FCC at that time to grant forbearance could be re-presented to them.... And yes, Fred is a subject matter expert on Wireline Regulation /FCC... (Think of him like a Steve Coran of the wireline world). :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Tykwinski" <eric-l...@truenet.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:10:11 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? > > Fred, > > It’s a little late, but damn, that was a good description of the problem. > I’m hoping and just hoping, that Wheeler understands exactly what the problem > really is. > Everyone thinks Title II is a hammer both on the ILEC and the public activist > side, > but in reality I hope that the FCC does have a bit more common sense and see > that competition is what will lead to the public good in the long run. > > Now if the lawyers can actually come up with something that will legally > stick, well that’s up in the air. > > Sincerely, > > Eric Tykwinski > TrueNet, Inc. > P: 610-429-8300 > F: 610-429-3222 > > > On Nov 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Kevin Sullivan <kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net> > > wrote: > > > > Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! > > > > Kevin > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net> > > To: <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? > > > > > >> On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: > >>> I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. > >>> > >>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 > >>> > >>> I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support > >>> and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying > >>> to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems > >>> carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might > >>> be on the "hate it" side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for > >>> your answer and have a fantastic day! > >>> > >> > >> You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. > >> > >> "Broadband" is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate > >> nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse > >> -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so > >> different people use it to have different referents. > >> > >> I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given > >> that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last > >> month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've > >> been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told > >> the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they > >> could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language > >> convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high > >> speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of > >> the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you > >> don't know Spanish, "el radio" is a device and "la radio" is a > >> program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications > >> component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. > >> > >> The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law > >> (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common > >> carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply > >> sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive > >> access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical > >> consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company > >> and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). > >> > >> The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They > >> recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco > >> duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the > >> ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not > >> recognizing the difference between a "network" (what carries IP) and an > >> "internetwork" (the Internet itself, content slung across many > >> networks), they demanded "network neutrality" referring to the ISP > >> function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by > >> proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the > >> actual telecom provided by the monopolists. > >> > >> So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications > >> component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using > >> rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole > >> attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those > >> who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use > >> non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all > >> WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the > >> Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on > >> up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by > >> facility owners). > >> > >> So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens > >> monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates > >> the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. > >> > >> -- > >> Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net > >> Interisle Consulting Group > >> +1 617 795 2701 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wireless mailing list > >> Wireless@wispa.org > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireless mailing list > > Wireless@wispa.org > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
