I think WISPA's support was just them playing for capital with the FCC because this administration was going to do this regardless of what WISPA said. At least I hope that was the reason behind it. Really sucks that the FCC ended up highlighting WISPA's support. Makes us question being part of WISPA.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 10:57 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > Not me. > > *From:* Adam Moffett > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 19, 2017 8:26 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] you all seen this on dsl reports > > Ok, but who found the rules onerous? > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Tim Reichhart" <timreichh...@hometowncable.net> > To: af@afmug.com > Sent: 12/19/2017 10:20:05 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] you all seen this on dsl reports > > > they dont know jack how we all operate are own networks. > > > > > ------------------------------ > -----Original Message----- > From: "Steve Jones" <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> > To: af@afmug.com > Date: 12/19/17 10:13 > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] you all seen this on dsl reports > > "Wireless service providers come up way short in bandwidth capacity > compared to their fiber/cable competitors. So it's no surprise they favor > an environment where they can discriminate on traffic and demand tolls, in > the form of paid prioritization, lest ye traffic be throttled" > > This though. > > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Tim Reichhart < > timreichh...@hometowncable.net> wrote: > >> https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/WISPA-Cheers-the-Death- >> of-Net-Neutrality-140905 >> >> >> > > > -- Carl Peterson *PORT NETWORKS* 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553 Baltimore, MD 21202 (410) 637-3707
