Ah the days of Covad, Northpoint, etc.. Racing to get high speed internet to needy customers on VC dollars not knowing that behind their backs a quick regulation change would make all that easy pickings for the incumbents... Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.. Fred, please gaze into your magic ball of the past and give us a clue to our future? Are our collective necks starting to hover over the ax block?
On 11/19/2014 08:32 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
