Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
No, you're not out of line. I've given up suggesting these topics get moved to WISPA Chat. I usually try to refrain from weighing in myself ;-). Chuck On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:06 PM, jason bailey wrote: > As a very small,but growing operator I have been following this list for > quite some time.I rarely poke my nose in as I enjoy the VERY intelligent > conversation that this list generates.I sometimes have to read 80 or more > messages when I get through putting in 110% and picking up my Three kids > after school as a single Dad and learn an unimaginable amount every day .I am > saddened by the level that some will take a conversation to.I hope to see a > political conversation as intense as this move elsewhere,But hey,I'm just a > single person,not the whole group.I can't learn anything about the technical > aspect of a WISP filtering the massive amount of email this topic has > generated.If i'm out of line,someone tell me. Regards ,Jason > > > Sent From My PrimeCo Phone > > --- On Fri, 2/5/10, MDK wrote: > > > From: MDK > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > To: "WISPA General List" > Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:44 PM > > > > There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever.But, the greed and lust > for more power is as old as politics itself. > > > -- > From: "Jack Unger" > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role inregulation > ofnet-neutrality> C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you > don't have >> excess people. >> >> jack >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick wrote: >>> C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of >>> excess >>> people. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> Jeff Broadwick >>> ImageStream >>> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >>> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>_ >>> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> Behalf Of Jack Unger >>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM >>> To: WISPA General List >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >>> of >>> net-neutrality >>> >>> >>> Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter >>> for everybody. >>> >>> But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there >>> is >>> no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". >>> >>> This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real >>> peace >>> impossible. >>> >>> jack >>> >>> >>> Brad Belton wrote: >>> >>> I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven >>> >>> since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. >>> >>> >>> >>> Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be >>> >>> peace. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brad >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >>> >>> Behalf Of Jack Unger >>> >>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM >>> >>> To: WISPA General List >>> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >>> of >>> >>> net-neutrality >>> >>> >>> >>> Good points. >>> >>> >>> >>> When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose >>> >>> the butter. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert West wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Life, Liberty, Property. >>> >>> >>> >>> Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. >>> >&
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
I agree-I've worked for essential monopolies (like defense contractors). Or maybe it's just big companies. In any case, the waste boggled my mind. To be clear my natural tendency is to want to "own" a market. However, I also recognize that you can't ever really do that, and if you do, no matter how good you are, people hate you because you're their only choice. If they have even a bad choice, you're fine, but they have to have a reasonable choice. I've seen examples of significant abuse of market position in a "past life" from the inside (which I won't enumerate for fear of legal repercussions, though the details are pretty fascinating, to me anyways...). What's interesting to me though is that the perpetrating company in this case is today ridiculed for its lack of innovation and not leading markets anymore. In other words, even though I believe the governments anti-monopoly powers are important, in this case I think the market corrected itself. Those abusive positions become addictive and then destructive. Chuck On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:10 PM, RickG wrote: > Then I fail your test. I dont want a monopoly. In th epast, I've worked for > both electric and phone companies and all it breeds is laziness and waste. > In competitive markets, I find the challenge invigorating. -RickG > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta wrote: > >> >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: >> >>> That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any >> unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could >> ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in >> its customers own best interests. >>> >>> If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies >> because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. >>> >> It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The >> government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow >> towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition >> to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly >> from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the >> game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government >> shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking >> winners and losers through its actions. >> >> -Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ -- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 "When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" >From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On Fri, 2010-02-05 at 22:26 -0500, RickG wrote: > Hitler. Just to name one of many! Ok, folks...it's time to stop. We've reached the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://store.wispgear.net/* Wired or Wireless Networks * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
As a very small,but growing operator I have been following this list for quite some time.I rarely poke my nose in as I enjoy the VERY intelligent conversation that this list generates.I sometimes have to read 80 or more messages when I get through putting in 110% and picking up my Three kids after school as a single Dad and learn an unimaginable amount every day .I am saddened by the level that some will take a conversation to.I hope to see a political conversation as intense as this move elsewhere,But hey,I'm just a single person,not the whole group.I can't learn anything about the technical aspect of a WISP filtering the massive amount of email this topic has generated.If i'm out of line,someone tell me. Regards ,Jason Sent From My PrimeCo Phone --- On Fri, 2/5/10, MDK wrote: From: MDK Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality To: "WISPA General List" Date: Friday, February 5, 2010, 10:44 PM There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever. But, the greed and lust for more power is as old as politics itself. -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality> C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have > excess people. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: >> C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of >> excess >> people. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> net-neutrality >> >> >> Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter >> for everybody. >> >> But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there >> is >> no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". >> >> This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real >> peace >> impossible. >> >> jack >> >> >> Brad Belton wrote: >> >> I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven >> >> since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. >> >> >> >> Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be >> >> peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> >> net-neutrality >> >> >> >> Good points. >> >> >> >> When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose >> >> the butter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert West wrote: >> >> >> >> Life, Liberty, Property. >> >> >> >> Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. >> >> >> >> For the common defense. >> >> >> >> It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the >> >> government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" >> >> thinkers, it won't get any better. >> >> >> >> As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> the draft. Now hear me out on this >> >> >> >> Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or >> >> >> >> form. >> >> >> >> Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this >> country. >> >> We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever >> without >> >&
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
There's never a NEED to accumulate power... ever.But, the greed and lust for more power is as old as politics itself. -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:21 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality> C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have > excess people. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: >> C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of >> excess >> people. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeff >> >> >> Jeff Broadwick >> ImageStream >> 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) >> +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) >> >> >> >> >> _ >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> net-neutrality >> >> >> Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter >> for everybody. >> >> But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there >> is >> no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". >> >> This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real >> peace >> impossible. >> >> jack >> >> >> Brad Belton wrote: >> >> I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven >> >> since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. >> >> >> >> Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be >> >> peace. >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> >> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM >> >> To: WISPA General List >> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> >> net-neutrality >> >> >> >> Good points. >> >> >> >> When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose >> >> the butter. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Robert West wrote: >> >> >> >> Life, Liberty, Property. >> >> >> >> Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. >> >> >> >> For the common defense. >> >> >> >> It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the >> >> government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" >> >> thinkers, it won't get any better. >> >> >> >> As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> the draft. Now hear me out on this >> >> >> >> Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or >> >> >> >> form. >> >> >> >> Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this >> country. >> >> We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever >> without >> >> much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put >> >> >> >> food >> >> >> >> on the table and pay for the folly of it all. >> >> >> >> If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, >> >> >> >> more >> >> >> >> commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions >> >> >> >> every >> >> >> >> month down useless well. >> >> >> >> Just my crazy thoughts. >> >> >> >> Bob- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> >> Behalf Of Brad Belton >> >> Sent: Thursday,
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Hitler. Just to name one of many! On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have > excess people. > > jack > > > Jeff Broadwick wrote: > > C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of > excess > > people. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jeff > > > > > > Jeff Broadwick > > ImageStream > > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > of > > net-neutrality > > > > > > Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter > > for everybody. > > > > But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there > is > > no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". > > > > This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real > peace > > impossible. > > > > jack > > > > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > > > I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven > > > > since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. > > > > > > > > Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be > > > > peace. > > > > > > > > > > > > Brad > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Jack Unger > > > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM > > > > To: WISPA General List > > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > of > > > > net-neutrality > > > > > > > > Good points. > > > > > > > > When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose > > > > the butter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robert West wrote: > > > > > > > > Life, Liberty, Property. > > > > > > > > Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. > > > > > > > > For the common defense. > > > > > > > > It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the > > > > government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" > > > > thinkers, it won't get any better. > > > > > > > > As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > the draft. Now hear me out on this > > > > > > > > Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or > > > > > > > > form. > > > > > > > > Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this > country. > > > > We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever > without > > > > much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put > > > > > > > > food > > > > > > > > on the table and pay for the folly of it all. > > > > > > > > If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > > commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions > > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > > month down useless well. > > > > > > > > Just my crazy thoughts. > > > > > > > > Bob- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > > > Behalf Of Brad Belton > > > > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM > > > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carr
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Then I fail your test. I dont want a monopoly. In th epast, I've worked for both electric and phone companies and all it breeds is laziness and waste. In competitive markets, I find the challenge invigorating. -RickG On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > > > That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any > unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could > ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in > its customers own best interests. > > > > If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies > because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. > > > It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The > government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow > towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition > to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly > from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the > game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government > shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking > winners and losers through its actions. > > -Matt > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Chuck, In the past, I'd say 99% of our posts are in agreement so I suspect we have the same thoughts here as well. I probably failed in not being more clear due to lack of detail with my thoughts due to time constraints. The context of my reply was in response to Jack's fear of big companies. Perhaps my fearlessness is naive which takes me to a new question: Which company do you know of that has a monopoly that is not given to them by our government? -RickG On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > The restraint is government. How do you restrain capitalism without the > restraint of laws, including those that restrain monopolies? > > The implication of saying the only companies that have monopolies are the > ones that government gives monopolies to is that without government > monopolies, and without government interference, there would be no > monopolies. I'm saying that government *has* to play a role in restraining > capitalism from self-destructing. > > There's no question in my mind that I want as much freedom as > possible...but I fully realize that if I'm given complete "freedom" to do as > I want, I'll do things that are bad for me. Or bad for everyone else anyway. > That's why wives and girlfriends are good for those of us who are men. Or > for those of us who are women too I suppose ;-). > > Chuck > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM, RickG wrote: > > > Chuck, where did I say "unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions. > So, > > I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained. > As > > far as history, to what do you refer to? > > -RickG > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch < > ch...@clarityconnect.com>wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote: > >> > >>> Jack, The only companies that "can do whatever they want to you > whenever > >>> they want to do it" are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess > who > >> - > >>> big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the > >>> government? > >> > >> That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any > >> unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I > could > >> ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts > in > >> its customers own best interests. > >> > >> If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies > >> because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. > >> > >> Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from > damaging > >> itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once > >> government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it > >> allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very > few > >> created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two > of > >> them). > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >> > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > >>> > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they > want > >> to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can > drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A > broadband > >> plan for Amercia) > “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this > >> regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice > >> application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? > Isn’t > >> voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network > >> operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping > >> rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > >> > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > >> > > WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ > > >> > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http:/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
I thought was WAS population control I'm confused now. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter for everybody. But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace impossible. jack Brad Belton wrote: I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be peace. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: Life, Liberty, Property. Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. For the common defense. It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" thinkers, it won't get any better. As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and the draft. Now hear me out on this Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food on the table and pay for the folly of it all. If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every month down useless well. Just my crazy thoughts. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers.
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
The restraint is government. How do you restrain capitalism without the restraint of laws, including those that restrain monopolies? The implication of saying the only companies that have monopolies are the ones that government gives monopolies to is that without government monopolies, and without government interference, there would be no monopolies. I'm saying that government *has* to play a role in restraining capitalism from self-destructing. There's no question in my mind that I want as much freedom as possible...but I fully realize that if I'm given complete "freedom" to do as I want, I'll do things that are bad for me. Or bad for everyone else anyway. That's why wives and girlfriends are good for those of us who are men. Or for those of us who are women too I suppose ;-). Chuck On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:48 PM, RickG wrote: > Chuck, where did I say "unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions. So, > I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained. As > far as history, to what do you refer to? > -RickG > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch > wrote: > >> >> On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote: >> >>> Jack, The only companies that "can do whatever they want to you whenever >>> they want to do it" are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who >> - >>> big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the >>> government? >> >> That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any >> unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could >> ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in >> its customers own best interests. >> >> If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies >> because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. >> >> Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging >> itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once >> government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it >> allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very few >> created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of >> them). >> >> Chuck >> >> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote: >>> So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want >> to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband >> plan for Amercia) “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this >> regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice >> application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t >> voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network >> operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping >> rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking a
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Chuck, where did I say "unrestrained? The rest of my post is questions. So, I agree with your reply in as much as that nobody should be unrestrained. As far as history, to what do you refer to? -RickG On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote: > > > Jack, The only companies that "can do whatever they want to you whenever > > they want to do it" are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who > - > > big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the > > government? > > That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any > unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could > ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in > its customers own best interests. > > If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies > because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. > > Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging > itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once > government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it > allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very few > created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of > them). > > Chuck > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > > > >> So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > >> companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want > to > >> do it. > >> > >> BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > >> > >> > >> Frank Crawford wrote: > >> > >> YES > >> > >> Jack Unger wrote: > >> > >> > >> I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > >> support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > >> it in a bathtub? > >> > >> Glenn Kelley wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > >> “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this > regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice > application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t > voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network > operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping > rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” > >> > >> > >> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > >> > _ > >> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > >> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > >> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> 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/ > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > >> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing > >> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since > 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> 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 > > > > Ar
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
My nature is to be peaceful, my friend. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: Human nature? Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have excess people. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of excess people. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter for everybody. But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace impossible. jack Brad Belton wrote: I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be peace. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: Life, Liberty, Property. Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. For the common defense. It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" thinkers, it won't get any better. As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and the draft. Now hear me out on this Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food on the table and pay for the folly of it all. If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every month down useless well. Just my crazy thoughts. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does Am
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Human nature? Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 4:21 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have excess people. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: > C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of > excess people. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > _ > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulation of net-neutrality > > > Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or > shelter for everybody. > > But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, > there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". > > This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real > peace impossible. > > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has > proven > > since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. > > > > Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never > be > > peace. > > > > > > Brad > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > > Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulation of > > net-neutrality > > > > Good points. > > > > When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll > choose > > the butter. > > > > > > > > Robert West wrote: > > > > Life, Liberty, Property. > > > > Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. > > > > For the common defense. > > > > It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For > the > > government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" > > thinkers, it won't get any better. > > > > As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war > tax > > > > and > > > > the draft. Now hear me out on this > > > > Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or > > > > form. > > > > Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. > > We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever > without > > much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and > put > > > > food > > > > on the table and pay for the folly of it all. > > > > If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, > > > > more > > > > commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions > > > > every > > > > month down useless well. > > > > Just my crazy thoughts. > > > > Bob- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > > Behalf Of Brad Belton > > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulation > > > > of > > > > net-neutrality > > > > Jack, > > > > > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety > of > > > > a > > > > larger population it does not take a larger government body with > increased > > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger > > > > population > > > > requires no more or fewer laws tha
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
C'mon Jeff. There is NO NEED to accumulate power if you don't have excess people. jack Jeff Broadwick wrote: > C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of excess > people. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > _ > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter > for everybody. > > But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is > no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". > > This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace > impossible. > > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven > > since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. > > > > Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be > > peace. > > > > > > Brad > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Jack Unger > > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > > net-neutrality > > > > Good points. > > > > When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose > > the butter. > > > > > > > > Robert West wrote: > > > > Life, Liberty, Property. > > > > Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. > > > > For the common defense. > > > > It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the > > government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" > > thinkers, it won't get any better. > > > > As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax > > > > and > > > > the draft. Now hear me out on this > > > > Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or > > > > form. > > > > Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. > > We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without > > much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put > > > > food > > > > on the table and pay for the folly of it all. > > > > If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, > > > > more > > > > commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions > > > > every > > > > month down useless well. > > > > Just my crazy thoughts. > > > > Bob- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Brad Belton > > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > > > > of > > > > net-neutrality > > > > Jack, > > > > > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of > > > > a > > > > larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased > > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger > > > > population > > > > requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are > > applied to all regardless of the size of population. > > > > > > > > Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the > > government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) > > becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become > > more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big > > governm
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
C'mon Jack, war is about trying to accumulate power, not get rid of excess people. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:35 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter for everybody. But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace impossible. jack Brad Belton wrote: I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be peace. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: Life, Liberty, Property. Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. For the common defense. It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" thinkers, it won't get any better. As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and the draft. Now hear me out on this Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food on the table and pay for the folly of it all. If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every month down useless well. Just my crazy thoughts. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people weather the stor
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Your statement is true when there is NOT enough food, clothing or shelter for everybody. But when there IS enough food, clothing and shelter for everybody, there is no need for war in order to achieve temporary "peace". This is why overpopulation is so bad - it creates war and makes real peace impossible. jack Brad Belton wrote: I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be peace. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: Life, Liberty, Property. Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. For the common defense. It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" thinkers, it won't get any better. As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and the draft. Now hear me out on this Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food on the table and pay for the folly of it all. If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every month down useless well. Just my crazy thoughts. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't know.just coast along I guess? Best, B
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
I would hope everyone would choose peace over war, but history has proven since the beginning of time that peace is achieved through war. Without a clearly defined "Winner" and "Loser" of war there will never be peace. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:28 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: > Life, Liberty, Property. > > Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. > > For the common defense. > > It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the > government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" > thinkers, it won't get any better. > > As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and > the draft. Now hear me out on this > > Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. > Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. > We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without > much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food > on the table and pay for the folly of it all. > > If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more > commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every > month down useless well. > > Just my crazy thoughts. > > Bob- > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Brad Belton > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > Jack, > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a > larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population > requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are > applied to all regardless of the size of population. > > > > Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the > government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) > becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become > more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big > government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms > you enjoy. > > > > Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because > they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless > providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) > exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted > upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays > out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's > charge the better my business does! > > > > What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM > is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take > TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of > their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business > with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground > that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment > by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. > > > > Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people > weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of > which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it > were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > > > I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, > Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't > know.just coast along I guess? > > > > Best, > > > > > > Brad > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM > To: WISPA General
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Oh I agree wholeheartedly with the belief election reform is needed. A taxpayer funded system with a set, and sensible budget would keep the well funded from swaying the electorate and becoming beholding to special interests. Term limits for all congressional seats should be set at 6 years. What is the dollar check off for on our Federal Tax return? Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:20 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jeff Broadwick wrote: > 1. Define "overpopulation"? I saw some numbers once that the entire > world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of > property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but > whatever. > What was your number-cruncher smoking? > > 2. Political corruption is a reality in any system. Well, were certainly seeing what political corruption has done to OUR system. Rather than just accept it, I'd rather try to eliminate it through public funding of all political campaigns. > It's the best argument > for term limits. Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on > contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the > internet. 6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the > post-Watergate regulations. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > _ > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > Just keep saying to yourself. > > 1. Overpopulation is good. > > 2 Political corruption does not exist. > > Good luck and best wishes. ;-) > > jack > > > RickG wrote: > > Jack, make that two trolls :) > > > > With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative > > claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have > > said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I > > respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the > > claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So, > > just in case you hit delete: > > > > Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government > > rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, > > except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a > > department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of > > pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to > > the tags on your mattress. > > > > It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not > > possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume > > nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every > > dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all > > of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in > > everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me > > that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive > > intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that > > is simply not forgivable in the common realm. > > > > Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without > > 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do > > without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if > > it were so. > > > > Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits > > of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind > > ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we > > expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from > > you? > > > > -RickG > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry Mark, > > > > I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible > > posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Good points. When I have to choose between guns (war) or butter (peace), I'll choose the butter. Robert West wrote: > Life, Liberty, Property. > > Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. > > For the common defense. > > It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the > government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" > thinkers, it won't get any better. > > As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and > the draft. Now hear me out on this > > Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. > Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. > We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without > much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food > on the table and pay for the folly of it all. > > If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more > commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every > month down useless well. > > Just my crazy thoughts. > > Bob- > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Brad Belton > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM > To: 'WISPA General List' > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > Jack, > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a > larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population > requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are > applied to all regardless of the size of population. > > > > Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the > government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) > becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become > more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big > government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms > you enjoy. > > > > Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because > they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless > providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) > exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted > upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays > out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's > charge the better my business does! > > > > What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM > is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take > TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of > their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business > with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground > that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment > by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. > > > > Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people > weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of > which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it > were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > > > I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, > Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't > know.just coast along I guess? > > > > Best, > > > > > > Brad > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > Brad, > > You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it > again. > > When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have > more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the > available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order > is expected of governme
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jeff Broadwick wrote: > 1. Define "overpopulation"? I saw some numbers once that the entire > world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of > property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but > whatever. > What was your number-cruncher smoking? > > 2. Political corruption is a reality in any system. Well, were certainly seeing what political corruption has done to OUR system. Rather than just accept it, I'd rather try to eliminate it through public funding of all political campaigns. > It's the best argument > for term limits. Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on > contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the > internet. 6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the > post-Watergate regulations. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > _ > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > Just keep saying to yourself. > > 1. Overpopulation is good. > > 2 Political corruption does not exist. > > Good luck and best wishes. ;-) > > jack > > > RickG wrote: > > Jack, make that two trolls :) > > > > With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative > > claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have > > said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I > > respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the > > claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So, > > just in case you hit delete: > > > > Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government > > rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, > > except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a > > department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of > > pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to > > the tags on your mattress. > > > > It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not > > possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume > > nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every > > dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all > > of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in > > everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me > > that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive > > intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that > > is simply not forgivable in the common realm. > > > > Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without > > 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do > > without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if > > it were so. > > > > Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits > > of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind > > ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we > > expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from > > you? > > > > -RickG > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Sorry Mark, > > > > I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible > > posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same > > response from me. > > > > I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the > > troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. > > > > > > > > MDK wrote: > > > > Jack, it remains very difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of > > stuff. > > > > Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government > > rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, > > except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a >
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Yep, I agree with your statement (which was well put). Chuck On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Matt Liotta wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > >> That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained >> capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And >> unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its >> customers own best interests. >> >> If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies >> because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. >> > It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's > role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a > monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that > ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing > its position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure > market fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in > the market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers > through its actions. > > -Matt > > > > > > 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/ -- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 "When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" >From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Chuck Bartosch wrote: > That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained > capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And > unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its > customers own best interests. > > If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because > innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. > It should be every capitalist desire to become a monopolist. The government's role should be to encourage businesses to innovate and grow towards being a monopoly while hoping the market has sufficient competition to stop that ultimate result. If not, then step in to prevent the monopoly from abusing its position. The government must only set the rules of the game and ensure market fairness through their rules. The government shouldn't participate in the market either with its own entity or by picking winners and losers through its actions. -Matt 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 10:34 AM, RickG wrote: > Jack, The only companies that "can do whatever they want to you whenever > they want to do it" are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who - > big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the > government? That statement completely ignores history. The tendency of any unconstrained capitalist is to form a monopoly. Hell, *I'd* do it if I could ;-). And unconstrained capitalism that achieves a monopoly rarely acts in its customers own best interests. If nothing else, it's in our society's interest to prevent monopolies because innovation stagnates in a monoploy situation. Some restraint by government is necessary to keep the system from damaging itself. Part of your argument is specious since by definition once government restrains most monopolies, the only ones left are the ones it allows (but there's no real content in that statement). There are very few created monopolies (mail still and phones from a long time ago being two of them). Chuck > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > >> So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance >> companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to >> do it. >> >> BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh >> >> >> Frank Crawford wrote: >> >> YES >> >> Jack Unger wrote: >> >> >> I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you >> support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown >> it in a bathtub? >> >> Glenn Kelley wrote: >> >> >> >> Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband >> plan for Amercia) >> “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory >> Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With >> this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another >> type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and >> application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the >> government be able to keep up?” >> >> >> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >> _ >> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com >> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com >> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing >> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since >> 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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/ -- Chuck Bartosch Clarity Connect, Inc. 200 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 257-8268 "When the stars threw down their spears, and water'd heaven with their tears, Did He smile, His work to see? Did He who made the Lamb make thee?" >From William Blake's Tiger!, Tiger! WISPA W
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: make campaigns post their contributions on the > internet. That's already available if the donation is over $99. Chuck 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
gt; > From: "Jack Unger" > > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM > To: "WISPA General List" > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > ofnet-neutrality> Brad, > > > There is really only one way to get a smaller government without > throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller > country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding > population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller > government. > > If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting > the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that > simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a > better job for working people because the real influence is the > big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new > crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old > group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power > actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. > > The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political > campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of > taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates > remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class > taxpayers, not large corporations). > > As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, > I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or > small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community > credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. > It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an > irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the > community. > > Best, > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > > The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or > organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have > recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to > no > recourse. > > > > Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to > stand > up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive > government > is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the > career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the > people > that elected them. > > > > Brad > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org > > ] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want > to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A > broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . > "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will > the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > > WISPA Wants You! Join today!http://signup.wispa.org/ > ---
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jack, The only companies that "can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it" are the ones given a monopoly and power by guess who - big government! So, where is the problem? Is it the companies or the government? On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave > to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan > for Amercia) > “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?” > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > 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/ > > > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing > Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since > 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Yeah I got a kick out of that article and to see the discussion re FCC and net-neutrality and FCC probes in anticompetive behavior and application prohibitations for the Iphone et all. Then to find out that this "rebellion" was planned but FCC worked to stopped it. Stay safe. Don't get out of bed. It's dangerous to drive, dangerous to walk on the streets, dangerous to operate your electronics and irresponsible to talk on the cellphone someone that might need to make an important phone call to might not be able to.. So just stay in bed, don't touch that cellphone, landline phone OR your laptop... Ohh there might be dangerous lights emitting from your TV so do not turn it on either. Now where did I put my foil hat. Darn weather radars and satellite signals are getting to me today Might need more foil / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:55 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality I love it that they had the FCC step in to stop the consumer protest and declare... to "purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern." Such BS. Isn't any large protest a potential safety concern? I'm now off to cover myself in bubble wrap. One can't be too safe, ya know. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:00 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting for them to thwart their plans of conquest! From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
I love it that they had the FCC step in to stop the consumer protest and declare... to "purposely try to disrupt or negatively impact a network with ill-intent is irresponsible and presents a significant public safety concern." Such BS. Isn't any large protest a potential safety concern? I'm now off to cover myself in bubble wrap. One can't be too safe, ya know. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Eje Gustafsson Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:00 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting for them to thwart their plans of conquest! From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.w
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
1. Define "overpopulation"? I saw some numbers once that the entire world's population could have a nice size house on a decent piece of property in Texas...can't imagine the infrastructure requirements, but whatever. 2. Political corruption is a reality in any system. It's the best argument for term limits. Personally, I'd like to see the personal limits on contributions removed and make campaigns post their contributions on the internet. 6-7 rich guys financed McGovern's campaign before all the post-Watergate regulations. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Just keep saying to yourself. 1. Overpopulation is good. 2 Political corruption does not exist. Good luck and best wishes. ;-) jack RickG wrote: Jack, make that two trolls :) With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So, just in case you hit delete: Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if it were so. Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from you? -RickG On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> wrote: Sorry Mark, I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same response from me. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. MDK wrote: Jack, it remains very difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of stuff. Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthie
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jack, I actually had a biology professor who really believed in "live and let die." He didn't believe in sending foreign aid to those countries not able to grow enough food to sustain themselves. He also subscribed heavily to the Monroe Doctrine. Mike _ From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Just keep saying to yourself. 1. Overpopulation is good. 2 Political corruption does not exist. Good luck and best wishes. ;-) jack RickG wrote: Jack, make that two trolls :) With all due respect, isnt that exactly how liberals respond to conservative claims - by demonizing them? Marks comments were spot on and I couldnt have said them any better, so I'm resending them with my name on the end. I respect your right to your viewpoint but I hope you have data to support the claims. I know the the data is there for the more conservative claims. So, just in case you hit delete: Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if it were so. Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from you? -RickG On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Jack Unger <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com> wrote: Sorry Mark, I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same response from me. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. MDK wrote: Jack, it remains very difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of stuff. Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if it were so. Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from you? -- From: "Jack Unger" <mailt
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with you. Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given the ability to obtain loans - That is an understatement. The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - your a failure" They have made it all to easy for folks to "own a home" -never even bothering to figure out if its a worthy cause. Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman in college without a job. Perhaps we should take a step back and simply ask - Instead of Frannie and Freddy - perhaps The Government does not belong in the home ownership game. If you look at the price of the average home since 1890 until today - you will find that it appears at first to be a great investment. However - if you adjust that thinking with the rate of inflation - you would realize that for many - it is far from the American Dream... The Saga of Home ownership and real estate is really one of a relatively flat history - except for the past few years where folks were able to flip before the drop... (2006-2007) Many people utilize their home as the ultimate credit card... They get locked into this pattern of either mortgaging to pay for their lifestyle - or... selling and getting bigger and better. Can anyone of us admit that we know so much about the real-estate market to play the odds? If so - then lets watch them @ the tables in Vegas for the WISPA event Anyhow - lets get back to the topic of the thread itself and the blog posting I actually posted... here it is in its glory (or lack there of ... links however are on the blog live ) Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” Is Broadband able to be classified as a common carrier service? The FCC most assuredly believes this is well within its authority – and is exercising these “policies” not just over the agency’s ability to regulate the NET – but if it can be classified as a common carrier service. Comcast is suing the FCC over its Order sanctioning the company for P2P blocking – so their ability to “regulate” needs to be clearly defined – of course re-defining a government entity is not an easy task… however defining ISPs as common carriers would seem suited to the FCC’s purposes, especially if given Title II’s clear definition of what a common carrier can’t do: “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” McDowell stated, “At the same time, broadband companies create and maintain software with millions of lines of code inside their systems. They also own app stores that are seamlessly connected to their networks. As technology advances, will the government be able to make the distinctions between applications and networks necessary under a new regulatory regime?… Will it (the government) be able to do so in Internet Time?” One thing is clear - If we were able to agree on some basic tenets providers could utilize to ensure all accounts are serviceable based upon not only “bandwidth” but also “throughput” most of these arguments would simply be a mute point. This past October (2009) The FCC laid out its draft for network neutrality rules which appears to allow to the greater extent a “free and open Internet.” The principles already existing from 2005: Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Those principles along with two new additional principles
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Yes. You shall be admitted to the Brave Order of the Wispa Ninja Warriors and will be permitted to enjoy all the benefits of this association. This includes, but is not limited to, being declared "Right" and "Correct" to any one post of your choosing to the Wispa list per month. We only ask that if you are secretly a member of the Motorola Knights of Cover, you renounce your allegiance to this faux society and swear allegiance to your brothers here. Welcome, Brother. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:58 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Thank God you're here!! Can I please join the pack ??? :-[ Robert West wrote: > And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting > for them to thwart their plans of conquest! > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and >> acted >> upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government >> stays >> out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big >> Telco's >> charge the better my business does! >> >> >> >> What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? >> GM >> is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to >> take >> TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out >> of >> their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small >> business >> with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the >> ground >> that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and >> commitment >> by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. >> >> >> >> Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ >> people >> weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of >> which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if >> it >> were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified >> buyers. >> >> >> >> I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, >> Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't >> know.just coast along I guess? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> net-neutrality >> >> >> >> Brad, >> >> You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try >> it >> again. >> >> When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to >> have >> more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the >> available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain >> order >> is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person >> police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community >> and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order >> in >> a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be >> able >> to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that >> is >> defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. >> >> America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited >> government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately >> today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to >> govern >> their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large >> corporations >> (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance >> companies, >> news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has >> unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money >> corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large >> campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are >> Democrats >> or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually >> all >> of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the >> corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that >> were fought for and won by our ancestors. >> >> jack >> >> >> >> Brad Belton wrote: >> >> Jack, >> >> I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller >> to >> have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist mentality to >> think that only government can grow America or help Americans. >> >> America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to >> better >> themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. >> America >> was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can >> possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework >> outlining >> government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to >> control the people it governs. The people of
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Life, Liberty, Property. Those were the basics that our government was formed to protect for us. For the common defense. It's now morphed from the government For the people into people For the government. As long as there are greedy people and the "what about mine?" thinkers, it won't get any better. As far as the current situation I think we should bring back the war tax and the draft. Now hear me out on this Are we at war? Where? I dunno, I'm not involved in any way, shape or form. Not directly anyhow. So it continues to zap the life out of this country. We've sanitized the citizenry out of war thus it can go on forever without much thought from those of us out here trying to live our lives and put food on the table and pay for the folly of it all. If we had a war tax and kids were being drafted, we'd all be involved, more commonly polarized and I guarantee you we wouldn't be pouring billions every month down useless well. Just my crazy thoughts. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 10:38 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't know.just coast along I guess? Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it again. When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corpora
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
LOL makes me recall article I read earlier tonight. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-04/at-t-s-iphone-deal-swamps-networ k-sparking-consumer-rebellion.html / Eje -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Robert West Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 11:37 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting for them to thwart their plans of conquest! From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Thank God you're here!! Can I please join the pack ??? :-[ Robert West wrote: > And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting > for them to thwart their plans of conquest! > > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On the contrary Brad. Not all but a lot of what you just said I agree with. You are obviously a sharp thinker and I absolutely respect that. Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking. Best of luck. Respectfully, jack Brad Belton wrote: > Jack, > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a > larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population > requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are > applied to all regardless of the size of population. > > > > Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the > government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) > becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become > more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big > government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms > you enjoy. > > > > Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because > they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless > providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) > exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted > upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays > out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's > charge the better my business does! > > > > What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM > is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take > TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of > their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business > with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground > that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment > by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. > > > > Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people > weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of > which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it > were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > > > I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, > Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't > know.just coast along I guess? > > > > Best, > > > > > > Brad > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > Brad, > > You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it > again. > > When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have > more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the > available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order > is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person > police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community > and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in > a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able > to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is > defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. > > America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited > government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately > today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern > their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations > (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, > news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has > unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money > corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large > campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats > or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all > of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the > corrupting effect of big money, none of us wi
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
On the contrary Brad. Not all but a lot of what you just said I agree with. You are obviously a sharp thinker and I absolutely respect that. Thank you for taking the time to explain your thinking. Best of luck. Respectfully, jack Brad Belton wrote: > Jack, > > > > Your police analogy is flawed. > > > > While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a > larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased > invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population > requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are > applied to all regardless of the size of population. > > > > Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the > government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) > becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become > more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big > government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms > you enjoy. > > > > Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because > they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless > providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) > exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted > upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays > out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's > charge the better my business does! > > > > What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM > is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take > TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of > their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business > with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground > that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment > by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. > > > > Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people > weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of > which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it > were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > > > I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, > Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't > know.just coast along I guess? > > > > Best, > > > > > > Brad > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > Brad, > > You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it > again. > > When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have > more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the > available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order > is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person > police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community > and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in > a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able > to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is > defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. > > America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited > government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately > today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern > their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations > (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, > news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has > unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money > corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large > campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats > or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all > of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the > corrupting effect of big money, none of us wi
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no recourse. Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people that elected them. Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org ] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/ WIS
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Ah, but what about the newly found "free speech" rights of corporations? You aren't allowed to limit their "speech" (DOLLARS) now according to most of the fine folks over at the supreme court. Of course, OURS will then be drowned out by their deep pockets full of "speech" Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: > The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or > organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have > recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no > recourse. > > > > Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand > up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government > is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the > career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people > that elected them. > > > > Brad > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > -
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Good point Jeff ! :) Jeff Broadwick wrote: > Wow Jack! > > "99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their > own lives." > > I believe that there are a small percent of people who knowingly or > unknowingly have turned their lives over to someone else, but to say that it > is 99% is just wrong. > > Jeff > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:56 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > Brad, > > You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it > again. > > When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have > more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the > available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order > is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person > police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community > and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in > a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able > to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is > defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. > > America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited > government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately > today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern > their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations > (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, > news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has > unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money > corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large > campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats > or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all > of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the > corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that > were fought for and won by our ancestors. > > jack > > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > Jack, > > I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become > smaller to > have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist > mentality to > think that only government can grow America or help Americans. > > America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to > better > themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. > America > was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can > possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework > outlining > government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able > to > control the people it governs. The people of the republic govern > not the > other way around. > > Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very > freedom big > government takes away. Government run health care just happens to > be the > straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is > enough > in overwhelming numbers. > > > Brad > > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] > On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in > regulation of > net-neutrality > > Brad, > > There is really only one way to get a smaller government without > throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a > smaller > country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an > exploding > population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller > government. > > If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as > voting > the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's n
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
And me and my pack of highly trained Wispa Ninja warriors will be waiting for them to thwart their plans of conquest! From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
They'll keep up by slowing us down with regulation. They're good at such activity. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Glenn Kelley Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:55 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jack, Your police analogy is flawed. While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the size of population. Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the people to become more dependent on them. The more dependent the people become on big government the more power they have over your life and the fewer freedoms you enjoy. Why is it that so many small businesses exist? They exist partly because they can provide a better service/price than the "big guys". Wireless providers (other than those looking for a handout to keep their doors open) exist because the ILECs created an opportunity that we identified and acted upon. Capitalism and the market works well as long as big government stays out of it. I don't know about the rest here, but the more the big Telco's charge the better my business does! What does America have to show for all the ridiculous recent spending? GM is still losing Billions of dollars, the big banks that were forced to take TARP haven't changed and many have repaid TARP to get the government out of their business. Is it such a bad thing to own and operate a small business with no long term debt? Sure, it makes getting the company off the ground that much harder, but it also creates a personal investment and commitment by the proprietor beyond any cash infusion. Unemployment is nearing record highs as those (evil guys) that employ people weather the storm of uncertainty. People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. I can go on, but I get the feeling none of this makes any sense to you, Jack. That's fine with me.there are those that do and those that.I don't know.just coast along I guess? Best, Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:55 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it again. When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that were fought for and won by our ancestors. jack Brad Belton wrote: Jack, I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist mentality to think that only government can grow America or help Americans. America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. America was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to control the people it governs. The people of the republic govern not the othe
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting > the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that > simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a > better job for working people because the real influence is the > big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new > crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old > group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power > actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. > > The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political > campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of > taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates > remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class > taxpayers, not large corporations). > > As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, > I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or > small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community > credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. > It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an > irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the > community. > > Best, > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: > > > The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or > organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have > recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to > no > recourse. > > > > Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to > stand > up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive > government > is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the > career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the > people > that elected them. > > > > Brad > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org > ] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation > of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want > to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A > broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . > "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will > the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > > 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/Unsubsc
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Wow Jack! "99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their own lives." I believe that there are a small percent of people who knowingly or unknowingly have turned their lives over to someone else, but to say that it is 99% is just wrong. Jeff Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 8:56 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it again. When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that were fought for and won by our ancestors. jack Brad Belton wrote: Jack, I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist mentality to think that only government can grow America or help Americans. America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. America was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to control the people it governs. The people of the republic govern not the other way around. Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big government takes away. Government run health care just happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is enough in overwhelming numbers. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Sorry Mark, I truly appreciate and enjoy responding to all appropriate and responsible posts but your LONG HISTORY of troll behavior will FOREVER elicit the same response from me. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. I will not feed the troll. MDK wrote: Jack, it remains very difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of stuff. Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if it were so. Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from you? -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality> Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no recourse. Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people that elected them. Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h,
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Brad, You are misunderstanding or ignoring what I've been saying so let's try it again. When you have more people crowded into the same space your are going to have more frequent and more complex problems, including more fighting over the available amount of resources. Like it or not, attempting to maintain order is expected of government, be it large or small government. A two-person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a tiny community and a 10,000 person police force is expected to be able to maintain order in a large city. A two-person (small government) police force will not be able to maintain order in New York or Los Angeles. "Socialism" (however that is defined or mis-defined) has nothing to do with this basic dynamic. America was built by hard-working people who thrived within the limited government framework that the founding fathers provided. Unfortunately today, 99% of the working people have lost or given up their power to govern their own lives. That power now resides in the hands of large corporations (banks, factory farms, seed companies, meat processors, insurance companies, news networks, incumbent telecom companies, etc.). Government has unfortunately become complicit in this dynamic. Today, big money corporations control government by "buying off" politicians through large campaign contributions. It doesn't matter if the politicians are Democrats or Republicans. Our big-money political system has corrupted virtually all of them. Until we fix our broken political system by removing the corrupting effect of big money, none of us will regain the freedoms that were fought for and won by our ancestors. jack Brad Belton wrote: Jack, I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist mentality to think that only government can grow America or help Americans. America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. America was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to control the people it governs. The people of the republic govern not the other way around. Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big government takes away. Government run health care just happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is enough in overwhelming numbers. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no recourse. Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand up and say n
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jack, it remains very difficult to be civil, when you post this kind of stuff. Since the founding of the country until the 1960's, the federal government rarely spent more than single digit percentaqes of everything we produce, except in time of war.We as a nation prospered immensely without a department of education, federal welfare, and millions upon millions of pages of regulations that covered everything from our toilet tank size to the tags on your mattress. It is precisely and amazingly preposterous to think that we could not possibly "do without" this massive nanny state that's threatening to consume nearly 35% of everything produced, and directly control over 1/2 of every dollar earned in this country.Your statement is utterly insulting to all of us.Not only can we live without the federal government's nose in everything we do, we would be MUCH better off if it were so. To tell me that I and all of the rest of us are incapable of survival without massive intrusion into our lives by politicians in Washington DC is an insult that is simply not forgivable in the common realm. Not only could we do without 80% of all the agencies, we could do without 90% of all the millions of pages of rules and laws. We could not only do without, we would be healthier, happier, wealthier, and more responsible if it were so. Your comment has slipped over the edge from simple discussion of the merits of federal actions vs our businesses and how we earn a living, to a blind ideological fantasy, where all comes from Washington DC.These things we expect from Politicians... they are by nature self serving... But why from you? -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:48 PM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality> Brad, > > There is really only one way to get a smaller government without > throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller > country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding > population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller > government. > > If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting > the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that > simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a > better job for working people because the real influence is the > big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new > crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old > group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power > actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. > > The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political > campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of > taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates > remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class > taxpayers, not large corporations). > > As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, > I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or > small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community > credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. > It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an > irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the > community. > > Best, > jack > > > Brad Belton wrote: >> The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or >> organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have >> recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to >> no >> recourse. >> >> >> >> Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to >> stand >> up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive >> government >> is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the >> career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the >> people >> that elected them. >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation >> of >> net-neutrality >> >> >> >> So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insuran
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Jack, I completely disagree with the notion that America has to become smaller to have a smaller less invasive government! It is a socialist mentality to think that only government can grow America or help Americans. America achieved its success by people utilizing their abilities to better themselves and their lives free of an overly burdening government. America was not built by grants, entitlements or anything big government can possibly provide. Instead our constitution provides a framework outlining government limitations, so as to prevent government to ever be able to control the people it governs. The people of the republic govern not the other way around. Countless Americans have given their lives to protect the very freedom big government takes away. Government run health care just happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back and Americans are saying enough is enough in overwhelming numbers. Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 4:48 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: > The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or > organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have > recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no > recourse. > > > > Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand > up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government > is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the > career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people > that elected them. > > > > Brad > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice ju
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Brad, There is really only one way to get a smaller government without throwing society into total disarray. That method is to have a smaller country, in other words, a lower level of population. With an exploding population there is just no way that I can see to get a smaller government. If only reclaiming our country for working people was as easy as voting the incumbents out that would be GREAT but unfortunately it's not that simple. Voting the incumbents out won't result in government doing a better job for working people because the real influence is the big-corporation money that finances the election campaigns for each new crop of political nominees. The big-money lobbyists remain when each old group of politicians is voted out so the big-money corporation's power actually becomes greater and greater as time goes on. The solution that I propose is equal public financing for ALL political campaigns. Each nominee (and incumbent) would receive an equal number of taxpayer dollars to run their campaign. This will help ALL candidates remember who they are supposed to be working for (working-class taxpayers, not large corporations). As to regaining some influence for working people with regard to banks, I'd recommend that everyone put their money in a local credit union or small local community bank. My money has been kept in a local community credit union for over 20 years and I feel good about it being there. It's contributing to the community instead of being used in an irresponsible fashion and/or used against the best interests of the community. Best, jack Brad Belton wrote: > The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or > organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have > recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no > recourse. > > > > Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand > up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government > is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the > career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people > that elected them. > > > > Brad > > > > > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Jack Unger > Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of > net-neutrality > > > > So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance > companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to > do it. > > BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh > > > Frank Crawford wrote: > > YES > > Jack Unger wrote: > > > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > > > > Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?" > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > > 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! > htt
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
The fundamental difference that Jack fails to recognize is if a bank (or organization other than the government) does treat you unfairly you have recourse. If your own government treats you unfairly, you have little to no recourse. Yes, we can all only hope the majority of Americans will continue to stand up and say no more to big government. A smaller less intrusive government is what America needs. In order to achieve this we have to remove the career politicians from office that have clearly lost touch with the people that elected them. Brad From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:01 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act-the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) "Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik's Cube?.Any Internet company that offers a voice application?" . "With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn't voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?" Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
So, now that government has been drowned, the huge banks, insurance companies, telecoms can do whatever they want to you whenever they want to do it. BWh, haaa, h, haaa, hh Frank Crawford wrote: YES Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
YES Jack Unger wrote: > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: > >> Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband >> plan for Amercia) >> “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory >> Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With >> this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another >> type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and >> application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the >> government be able to keep up?” >> >> >> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >> _ >> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com >> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com >> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >> >> >> 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
No, but a whirlpool tub, yes. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Jack Unger" Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:39 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation ofnet-neutrality> I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: >> Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A >> broadband plan for Amercia) >> “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory >> Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … >> “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just >> another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators >> and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how >> will the government be able to keep up?” >> >> >> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >> _ >> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com >> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com >> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing > Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since > 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Glenn, I think it's important not be be overly alarmist. There is every reason to believe that Network Neutrality will allow and encourage "reasonable network management" practices. WISPA works responsibly with the FCC and with other governmental agencies to be sure that they understand the needs of both WISPs and the public and to incorporate those needs into the regulatory and legislative framework. Jack Unger Chair - WISPA FCC Committee Glenn Kelley wrote: What happens if the government states you cannot block any content and or do traffic shaping ... ? Understand - the talk was to the Free State Foundation - who is against virtually any blocking or traffic shaping This being said- even the plans you may offer may be out of the window on the other extreme. I think some regulation is wise personally ! - However if its to broad it does not help - if its to narrow it does not help on the other side of the fence :-) Like anything - it needs to be wisely thought out and dealt with _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. On Feb 4, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jack Unger wrote: I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
What happens if the government states you cannot block any content and or do traffic shaping ... ? Understand - the talk was to the Free State Foundation - who is against virtually any blocking or traffic shaping This being said- even the plans you may offer may be out of the window on the other extreme. I think some regulation is wise personally ! - However if its to broad it does not help - if its to narrow it does not help on the other side of the fence :-) Like anything - it needs to be wisely thought out and dealt with _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. On Feb 4, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Jack Unger wrote: > I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you > support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown > it in a bathtub? > > Glenn Kelley wrote: >> Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates >> telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to >> oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he >> gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband >> plan for Amercia) >> “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory >> Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With >> this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another >> type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and >> application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the >> government be able to keep up?” >> >> >> Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> >> _ >> Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com >> Email: gl...@hostmedic.com >> Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ >> >> >> > > -- > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. > Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing > Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 > www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com > > > > > > > > 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/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
I trust that government will be able to keep up just fine. Do you support the alternative of making government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub? Glenn Kelley wrote: > Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave > to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan > for Amercia) > “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?” > > > Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> > _ > Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com > Email: gl...@hostmedic.com > Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. > > > > > 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/ > > > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.com 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] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulation of net-neutrality
Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband plan for Amercia) “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the government be able to keep up?” Much more on the blog: www.HostMedic.com --> _ Glenn Kelley | Principle | HostMedic |www.HostMedic.com Email: gl...@hostmedic.com Pplease don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. 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/