Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
> reform contracts when the contracts try to impose penalties I'd also argue, that the opposite sometimes also occurs. That the Courts will often dismiss judgements when Penalties are not clearly defined in a contract upfront. If one can clearly define upfront, a penalty, that would appropriately reflect the losses the provider would likely incur on early termination, and get the apposing party to agree that those losses are accurate, then it constitutes a "mutual concensus and understanding" which is the foundation of every contract. Its understandable that in many cases exact losses are not easilly proven, and estimated losses could be used, if their was a sound basis for estimating those losses. Without that in advance, a court would likely require "proof" of exact losses. I've seen similar cases related to things like Employee Non-Competes or Subscription based Clubs like Health Spas. What I find occurs, is that if repercussions (penalties) or any restriction is put in a contract that is OVERLY RESTRICTIVE, that it would often be thrown out of court as unreasonable and uninforceable, or reduced to the level that would allow it to be inforceable. Actually many contracts specifically add the text "if any part of this contract is deamed to be uninforceable restrictions will be reduced to the level that will allow them to be reasonable and inforcable". The best chance is to set a restriction in a contact that are fair and to the minimal level appropriate to effectively solve the mutually pre-agreed purpose. Because then there is no basis to ask for the contract to be allowed to be breached, and likely allowed to be inforceable. If a reasonable contract was not ever allowed to be inforcable, no one would ever take the time to write one in the first place. Any contract that has terms within it that are illegal, are not enforcible. Today, I see so many contracts that have illegal non-inforcable clauses within them. Today, oFten, I see the purpose of a contract to be just to determine who assumes the burden of proof (cost) to prove the contract one way or the other. For example, Credit Bureaus are one of the biggest rackets today to help sellers. A credit Bureau is not required to make judgement on the legality of the vendor that made the claim to a personal credit report, just that their is an agreement in place. Thus the consumer often need to pay the cost to disprove, to clear their name, or be leveraged to pay an amount they do not legally owe to restore their good name. Its all about cost and leverage today, not the law. Which I persaonlly think is sad. What we need, is government legislation, that reduces the cost to consumers, to enforce contract terms, and reduce the costs to providers, to fight fraudualent consumer claims. So we can make decissions based on the law, and not on the hassle/cost incurred to inforce the law. As long as there are Credit Reporting Agencies, and Credit Reporting Agencies' models are to first (priority) represent the Providers and Vendors, and only consumers and buyers secondly, these are battles that will be fault behind the scenes, with very little respect to what the "law" actually is. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:23 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > The problem lies in the common belief that one can draft a contract which > imposes a penalty for breach of contract. > > While courts often allow some measure of liquidated damages they generally > will not protect a drafting party by enforcing a penalty clause. So, if > you > were challenged by a customer when trying to enforce an early termination > fee of $1000.00 on a 2 year term internet service agreement, you would > have > to show that you would likely loose $1000.00 in expenses and ascertainable > future revenues. > > For example: If you charge $50.00 per month for internet, you could > probably > show $1000.00 in potential loss over the two year term but remember that > the > amount of loss diminishes the further into that term that you get. > > BUT... Now look at your example of a $10,000 termination fee. No court > would enforce a $10,000 termination fee for $50/month internet because it > would clearly be a penalty. Worst case if you paid $1000.00 for the CPE, > $500 for the install, and lost $1200 in future revenues, you would still > only have lost $2700.00 total. So the court would cap you at $2700.00 > worth > of liquidated damages. > > I know that everyone would like to think that there is an absolute freedom > to put anything you want into a contract, but it&#
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
I would argue that this issue would be something best under the jurisdiction of Federal Courts, not the FCC or States. Any service that is provided to a consumer for use in Multiple States, makes it overly encumbersome for the provider or consumer to have to address it legally with MULTIPLE State Courts. Not that I am saying that their is any Legal support for my above comments. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to > telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, > STATE > COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell > carrier > named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that > early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore > fall > under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS > from > rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment > on > the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue > when > SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with > their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. > > The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination > fees > as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the > FCC > or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state > level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how > ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the > FCC > is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. > > Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this > issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes > just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). > Common > law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address > many > of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination > fees. The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts > have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the > FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field > of telecommunication termination fees. This indecision by the FCC has > held > up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts. The main > thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so that > subscribers have rights either in state court or before the FCC and so > that > PROVIDERS have some sense of direction with regards to their obligations > or > limitations under common law and regulatory regimes. > > - Larry > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> Travis, >> >> I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a >> contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting >> the >> terms of the agreement. >> >> The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than >> recoup >> costs. > > > Again... So? It is not the job of government to "ensure" that everything > a > > customer chooses to do is "made fair" for him. > > > > > > > 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@
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
What does this have to do with "militia"?This is plain old business sense talking. There's a very observable business history, and we're all businessmen. Nothing I've said is in any way strange or even not well known. I'd just like to know what on earth people think they're going to get in the short run that's worth all of us vanishing. - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Sounds like you and your militia buddies better go do sumptin' 'bout it. > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:38 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> That's really a non-response to the issue. >> >> As a WISP, I travel the public roads, does this make me a "regulated >> industry"? Of course not. I am still bound by the rules of the road, >> however. >> >> But just driving the public highway does not obligate me to buy a car for >> the cop when his breaks, out of my pocket, because I was the closest >> person >> at hand when his broke down, or hand him the keys because mine is faster >> and >> more capable. Nor does it obligate me to feed him, buy him donuts, nor >> does it mean I can be required to file his papers for him or launder his >> uniform. Nor does it give the federal government the right to set my >> wages, because I use public facilities. >> >> This "we're already a regulated industry, stop fighting and accept >> extinction" argument is specious, and we all know it. I just can't >> figure >> who it is that wants it and has cowed everyone else into silence. We do >> NOT need the FCC to tell us how to manage data flow on our networks, how >> to >> charge for our services, nor control what content passes through, nor be >> prohibited from passing through our networks. Nor do we need to be >> doing >> THEIR work for them for free, just because they get a whim to ask for it. >> >> WE SHOULD BE PROACTIVE IN DEFENDING OURSELVES. I just can't figure out >> why >> or how the only supposed "representative" of WISP's is seemingly unable >> to >> make one single official statement in opposition to any mandate or >> regulatory fiat. >> >> I said a long time ago that these things would come back to bite us, if >> we >> did not take a defensive stand.When CALEA first came onto the >> horizon, >> we got all kinds of pleasant sounding words about how they just needed >> help >> with law enforcement. The last word on "the standard" was that either >> you >> rebuild your network to conform or else you're dead. Even if it means >> complete redesign of how your network functions. Of course, that was >> specifically denied at the first, with vague statements about how they do >> not intend to mandate network design, etc. Now even the WISPA people are >> on >> that bandwagon, and even have gone along with mandated network design or >> equipment. >> >> The question I have is... AT WHAT POINT WILL WISPA defend us? Ever? >> It >> seems they're the cheerleaders for regulation, not our defenders. It >> seems >> it takes around 2 to 3 trips to DC and they come back all starry eyed and >> delusional about the nature of the MONSTER they are so charmed by. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> >>> We ARE regulated now. Just try to go on some other non part 15 >>> frequency >>> or >>> start running power on ULS freqs. You will discover very quickly how >>> regulated you are. >> >> >> >> >> 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/ &g
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
Sounds like you and your militia buddies better go do sumptin' 'bout it. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > That's really a non-response to the issue. > > As a WISP, I travel the public roads, does this make me a "regulated > industry"? Of course not. I am still bound by the rules of the road, > however. > > But just driving the public highway does not obligate me to buy a car for > the cop when his breaks, out of my pocket, because I was the closest > person > at hand when his broke down, or hand him the keys because mine is faster > and > more capable. Nor does it obligate me to feed him, buy him donuts, nor > does it mean I can be required to file his papers for him or launder his > uniform. Nor does it give the federal government the right to set my > wages, because I use public facilities. > > This "we're already a regulated industry, stop fighting and accept > extinction" argument is specious, and we all know it. I just can't > figure > who it is that wants it and has cowed everyone else into silence. We do > NOT need the FCC to tell us how to manage data flow on our networks, how > to > charge for our services, nor control what content passes through, nor be > prohibited from passing through our networks. Nor do we need to be doing > THEIR work for them for free, just because they get a whim to ask for it. > > WE SHOULD BE PROACTIVE IN DEFENDING OURSELVES. I just can't figure out > why > or how the only supposed "representative" of WISP's is seemingly unable to > make one single official statement in opposition to any mandate or > regulatory fiat. > > I said a long time ago that these things would come back to bite us, if we > did not take a defensive stand.When CALEA first came onto the horizon, > we got all kinds of pleasant sounding words about how they just needed > help > with law enforcement. The last word on "the standard" was that either > you > rebuild your network to conform or else you're dead. Even if it means > complete redesign of how your network functions. Of course, that was > specifically denied at the first, with vague statements about how they do > not intend to mandate network design, etc. Now even the WISPA people are > on > that bandwagon, and even have gone along with mandated network design or > equipment. > > The question I have is... AT WHAT POINT WILL WISPA defend us? Ever? > It > seems they're the cheerleaders for regulation, not our defenders. It > seems > it takes around 2 to 3 trips to DC and they come back all starry eyed and > delusional about the nature of the MONSTER they are so charmed by. > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> We ARE regulated now. Just try to go on some other non part 15 frequency >> or >> start running power on ULS freqs. You will discover very quickly how >> regulated you are. > > > > > 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] FCC changes
Larry Yunker wrote: but I think that cellular > service is where this all started. Changes in availability, reliability, > packages, and competition in the cellular market has also lead to much of > the push for early termination fee (ETF) reform. > There was a point in time when T Mobile was turning on in our area. We got hooked up with them for a bit. They offered big commissions, 150-175 to sign up new customers. If there was a phone to be given, we would buy the phone. I'm pretty certain they paid the company we dealt with quite abit more. So I can see the cell companies reasoning behind wanting to collect early termination fees from the subscriber. They're upfront cost are substantial. I also understand in the TV world, they pay a size able install and commission, but if the customer defaults and quits early, they back charge the sales installation vendor. Somewhere the customer has to pay or nobody is going to make any money, or be profitable. Can you imagine what will happen to the industry, if contracts where no longer an issue and the cell companies ran aggressive marketing campaigns to lure away each others customers? People switching carriers a couple times a year could cause financial hovak with the market. Churn hurts. 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] FCC changes
- Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > With the mergers of Cingular and AT&T and Nextel and Sprint, roughly half > of > all cell phone users in the U.S. have had some sort of merger affect their > service, billing, or network over the past five years. Some changes have > been good, some bad, but the net effect is that these changes may have > spurred many customers to look elsewhere for service. I have to second that. It takes my cell provider AT LEAST 3 months to get my billing and choices correct after ANY change in service. It wasn't always this way, either. But, they had a rather famous "merger" a while back and each time they "improve" they get worse. And what's worse? You can ask the exact same question on 4 different days, to 4 different CSR's and get 3 different answers + an "I don't know". I've chosen them for technical reasons, but if customer service was the deciding factor, I'd have changed a LONG time ago. 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] FCC changes
I agree that the auto-renew trick is a concern, but I think that cellular service is where this all started. Changes in availability, reliability, packages, and competition in the cellular market has also lead to much of the push for early termination fee (ETF) reform. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, land-line phone rates are tariffed services. Cellular is NOT subject to tariffs and is VERY loosely regulated with regards to quality issues. With the mergers of Cingular and AT&T and Nextel and Sprint, roughly half of all cell phone users in the U.S. have had some sort of merger affect their service, billing, or network over the past five years. Some changes have been good, some bad, but the net effect is that these changes may have spurred many customers to look elsewhere for service. From the consumer's prospective, ETF's stand in the way of customer "choice". From the prospective of a service provider we all understand the need to recoup our investment and we understand the cost of losing a customer, hopefully the regulators will see this potential loss to the provider before issuing any preemptory rules regarding EFT's. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 5:27 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 776.html I agree that this could be a real issue. But one thing that really irks me though is the under handed(in my opinion) use of auto renewing contracts. After the contract is up it should just switch to month to month service. This is likely what has opened this can of worms. I know of a few people that are screaming about that. They switch there telco circuits to a new provider. They sign like a 2 year term. After 2 years 4 months they figure the contract is up so they switch again. They get nailed on early termination because it auto renewed for another 2 years 4 months earlier. 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] FCC changes
That's really a non-response to the issue. As a WISP, I travel the public roads, does this make me a "regulated industry"? Of course not. I am still bound by the rules of the road, however. But just driving the public highway does not obligate me to buy a car for the cop when his breaks, out of my pocket, because I was the closest person at hand when his broke down, or hand him the keys because mine is faster and more capable. Nor does it obligate me to feed him, buy him donuts, nor does it mean I can be required to file his papers for him or launder his uniform. Nor does it give the federal government the right to set my wages, because I use public facilities. This "we're already a regulated industry, stop fighting and accept extinction" argument is specious, and we all know it. I just can't figure who it is that wants it and has cowed everyone else into silence. We do NOT need the FCC to tell us how to manage data flow on our networks, how to charge for our services, nor control what content passes through, nor be prohibited from passing through our networks. Nor do we need to be doing THEIR work for them for free, just because they get a whim to ask for it. WE SHOULD BE PROACTIVE IN DEFENDING OURSELVES. I just can't figure out why or how the only supposed "representative" of WISP's is seemingly unable to make one single official statement in opposition to any mandate or regulatory fiat. I said a long time ago that these things would come back to bite us, if we did not take a defensive stand.When CALEA first came onto the horizon, we got all kinds of pleasant sounding words about how they just needed help with law enforcement. The last word on "the standard" was that either you rebuild your network to conform or else you're dead. Even if it means complete redesign of how your network functions. Of course, that was specifically denied at the first, with vague statements about how they do not intend to mandate network design, etc. Now even the WISPA people are on that bandwagon, and even have gone along with mandated network design or equipment. The question I have is... AT WHAT POINT WILL WISPA defend us? Ever?It seems they're the cheerleaders for regulation, not our defenders. It seems it takes around 2 to 3 trips to DC and they come back all starry eyed and delusional about the nature of the MONSTER they are so charmed by. - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > We ARE regulated now. Just try to go on some other non part 15 frequency > or > start running power on ULS freqs. You will discover very quickly how > regulated you are. 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] FCC changes
Yep, I got nailed by this once myself. - Original Message - From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html > > I agree that this could be a real issue. But one thing that really > irks me though is the under handed(in my opinion) use of auto renewing > contracts. After the contract is up it should just switch to month to > month service. This is likely what has opened this can of worms. > > I know of a few people that are screaming about that. They switch > there telco circuits to a new provider. They sign like a 2 year term. > After 2 years 4 months they figure the contract is up so they switch > again. They get nailed on early termination because it auto renewed > for another 2 years 4 months earlier. > > 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] FCC changes
> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html I agree that this could be a real issue. But one thing that really irks me though is the under handed(in my opinion) use of auto renewing contracts. After the contract is up it should just switch to month to month service. This is likely what has opened this can of worms. I know of a few people that are screaming about that. They switch there telco circuits to a new provider. They sign like a 2 year term. After 2 years 4 months they figure the contract is up so they switch again. They get nailed on early termination because it auto renewed for another 2 years 4 months earlier. 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] FCC changes
The only thing we have to do is to stick to the tariff. And the tariff must be approved. Normally the FCC and NECA and the state regulators attempt to enforce fairness in tariffs. However things like leased lines (for backbone connections) are frequently unregulated and the telcos are free to use market forces to make their deals. So, no it is not a requirement that I know that anyone in this business has to charge early termination fees. I would guess that they are the most often discounted portions of the bills that there are. - Original Message - From: "Randy Cosby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Chuck, maybe you can shed some light on a thought I had here. > > With most of my telco contracts, there is not an "early termination fee" > involved. Instead, I am contractually obligated to pay for the > remainder of the contract, or in other instances something like 50-70% > of the remainder if I stop the service before the end of the contracted > period. > > Is that an FCC requirement that telcos handle early termination that > way, or just a standard industry practice? Anyone do that in the WISP > world? > > Randy > > > Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: >> I AM a telco and want to know where the handouts come from. Real work? >> Plowing fiber through solid rock so I can earn $13.50/month providing >> basic >> service, I guess that isn't real work, right? BTW, show me where any tax >> dollars are used to support the telcos. That one has always eluded me >> too. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:26 PM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> >> >>>> If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. >>>> >>>> Thanks for agreeing. >>>> >>>> Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. >>>> >>> Billions of dollars in government handouts without having to do any real >>> work? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I wanna be a telco! :) >>> >>> David Smith >>> MVN.net >>> >>> >>> >>> 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/ >> > > -- > Randy Cosby > Vice President > InfoWest, Inc > > office: 435-773-6071 > > > > > > 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] FCC changes
Chuck, maybe you can shed some light on a thought I had here. With most of my telco contracts, there is not an "early termination fee" involved. Instead, I am contractually obligated to pay for the remainder of the contract, or in other instances something like 50-70% of the remainder if I stop the service before the end of the contracted period. Is that an FCC requirement that telcos handle early termination that way, or just a standard industry practice? Anyone do that in the WISP world? Randy Chuck McCown - 2 wrote: > I AM a telco and want to know where the handouts come from. Real work? > Plowing fiber through solid rock so I can earn $13.50/month providing basic > service, I guess that isn't real work, right? BTW, show me where any tax > dollars are used to support the telcos. That one has always eluded me too. > > - Original Message - > From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > >>> If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. >>> >>> Thanks for agreeing. >>> >>> Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. >>> >> Billions of dollars in government handouts without having to do any real >> work? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I wanna be a telco! :) >> >> David Smith >> MVN.net >> >> >> >> 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/ > -- Randy Cosby Vice President InfoWest, Inc office: 435-773-6071 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] FCC changes
I AM a telco and want to know where the handouts come from. Real work? Plowing fiber through solid rock so I can earn $13.50/month providing basic service, I guess that isn't real work, right? BTW, show me where any tax dollars are used to support the telcos. That one has always eluded me too. - Original Message - From: "David E. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > >> If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. >> >> Thanks for agreeing. >> >> Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. > > Billions of dollars in government handouts without having to do any real > work? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I wanna be a telco! :) > > David Smith > MVN.net > > > > 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] FCC changes
> If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. > > Thanks for agreeing. > > Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. Billions of dollars in government handouts without having to do any real work? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me. I wanna be a telco! :) David Smith MVN.net 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] FCC changes
The problem lies in the common belief that one can draft a contract which imposes a penalty for breach of contract. While courts often allow some measure of liquidated damages they generally will not protect a drafting party by enforcing a penalty clause. So, if you were challenged by a customer when trying to enforce an early termination fee of $1000.00 on a 2 year term internet service agreement, you would have to show that you would likely loose $1000.00 in expenses and ascertainable future revenues. For example: If you charge $50.00 per month for internet, you could probably show $1000.00 in potential loss over the two year term but remember that the amount of loss diminishes the further into that term that you get. BUT... Now look at your example of a $10,000 termination fee. No court would enforce a $10,000 termination fee for $50/month internet because it would clearly be a penalty. Worst case if you paid $1000.00 for the CPE, $500 for the install, and lost $1200 in future revenues, you would still only have lost $2700.00 total. So the court would cap you at $2700.00 worth of liquidated damages. I know that everyone would like to think that there is an absolute freedom to put anything you want into a contract, but it's simply not true. Courts reform contracts when the contracts try to impose penalties. The policy reason for doing disallowing penalties is to promote freedom of contract. In that sometimes it's better for competition, the economy, and the marketplace for parties to be able to BREACH their contractual agreements. Therefore we want to allow breaches to occur when it would economically make sense to leave the contract or break its terms. Let's face it... if you could ALWAYS write a big penalty into every contract, NO ONE would ever be able to willingly break a contract. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes I still don't "get" it. If you specifically stated the early termination fee in the contract and provide a well defined SLA and what will happen if you do not provide that SLA to the customer, then what is to be argued? If the contract says there is a $1000 termination fee or a $10,000 termination fee, it should not matter. When you both sign your name to the contract, you have both agreed to all terms "IN" that contract. It is what is left out of the contract that should be dealt with in court. As per this discussion, the Internet in "most" part is still unregulated. Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is still not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a fully regulated industry that falls under their control. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:12:14 -0400 >Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to >telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, STATE >COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell carrier >named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that >early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore fall >under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from >rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment on >the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when >SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with >their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. > >The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees >as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC >or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state >level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how >ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the FCC >is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. > >Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this >issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes >just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). Common >law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many >of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination >fees. The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts >have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the >FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field >of t
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
We ARE regulated now. Just try to go on some other non part 15 frequency or start running power on ULS freqs. You will discover very quickly how regulated you are. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > You make my case for me. > > If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. > > Thanks for agreeing. > > Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:32 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> Originally the telcos were unregulated. You had Bell, Gray, Home and >> others. Market forces started to help settle who the larger players were >> but there were still farmer lines in the 1960s that were unregulated. >> All >> farmer lines that combined to become ILECs did pretty good. Regulation >> was >> very good in that instance. Regulation (part-15 rules) is the only way >> we >> exist now. >> >> - Original Message - >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:26 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> >>> That last part about being "full regulated" should be fought to our last >>> breath. It's our only means of survival. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" >>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >>> >>> >>> . Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is >>> still >>> not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a >>> fully regulated industry that falls under their control. >>>> >>>> Scottie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.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] FCC changes
You make my case for me. If ISP's become "fully regulated" there will only be the telcos. Thanks for agreeing. Our survival DEPENDS on not being 'regulated'. - Original Message - From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Originally the telcos were unregulated. You had Bell, Gray, Home and > others. Market forces started to help settle who the larger players were > but there were still farmer lines in the 1960s that were unregulated. All > farmer lines that combined to become ILECs did pretty good. Regulation > was > very good in that instance. Regulation (part-15 rules) is the only way we > exist now. > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:26 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> That last part about being "full regulated" should be fought to our last >> breath.It's our only means of survival. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "WISPA General List" >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> >> . Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is >> still >> not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a >> fully regulated industry that falls under their control. >>> >>> Scottie >> >> >> >> >> 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.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] FCC changes
It doesn't stop them all, but it helps Of course, we require that install and first months service are due at time of install. Mike Hammett wrote: > I have a $275 install and I still have people not paying their bills. > > > -- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > - Original Message - > From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:54 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > >> Well, our cheapest install has always been $200 and I just raised it to >> $250. Prices go up from there. We also have a 1 month ROI on our >> installs. (install fee + 1st month service pays for the install) >> >> We also do not do contracts... everything is month to month. >> >> While the price of the install can be a barrier, it also screens out a >> lot of those who will not pay their monthly bill. >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and >>> WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to >>>> charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. >>>> >>>> Kurt Fankhauser >>>> WAVELINC >>>> P.O. Box 126 >>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>>> 419-562-6405 >>>> www.wavelinc.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >>>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List >>>> Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes >>>> >>>> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 >>>> 776.html >>>> >>>> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >>>> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >>>> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. >>>> :( >>>> >>>> Travis >>>> Microserv >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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.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.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] FCC changes
Originally the telcos were unregulated. You had Bell, Gray, Home and others. Market forces started to help settle who the larger players were but there were still farmer lines in the 1960s that were unregulated. All farmer lines that combined to become ILECs did pretty good. Regulation was very good in that instance. Regulation (part-15 rules) is the only way we exist now. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > That last part about being "full regulated" should be fought to our last > breath.It's our only means of survival. > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:23 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > . Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is > still > not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a > fully regulated industry that falls under their control. >> >> Scottie > > > > > 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] FCC changes
That last part about being "full regulated" should be fought to our last breath.It's our only means of survival. - Original Message - From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:23 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes . Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is still not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a fully regulated industry that falls under their control. > > Scottie 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] FCC changes
I still don't "get" it. If you specifically stated the early termination fee in the contract and provide a well defined SLA and what will happen if you do not provide that SLA to the customer, then what is to be argued? If the contract says there is a $1000 termination fee or a $10,000 termination fee, it should not matter. When you both sign your name to the contract, you have both agreed to all terms "IN" that contract. It is what is left out of the contract that should be dealt with in court. As per this discussion, the Internet in "most" part is still unregulated. Just because the FCC rules it on the cell carriers (which I think is still not right), it should not be passed on to ISP's until the Internet is a fully regulated industry that falls under their control. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 01:12:14 -0400 >Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to >telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, STATE >COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell carrier >named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that >early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore fall >under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from >rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment on >the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when >SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with >their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. > >The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees >as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC >or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state >level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how >ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the FCC >is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. > >Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this >issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes >just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). Common >law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many >of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination >fees. The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts >have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the >FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field >of telecommunication termination fees. This indecision by the FCC has held >up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts. The main >thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so that >subscribers have rights either in state court or before the FCC and so that >PROVIDERS have some sense of direction with regards to their obligations or >limitations under common law and regulatory regimes. > >- Larry > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'WISPA General List'" >Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> Travis, >> >> I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a >> contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the >> terms of the agreement. >> >> The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than >> recoup >> costs. > > >Again... So? It is not the job of government to "ensure" that everything a > >customer chooses to do is "made fair" for him. > > > > > > >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] FCC changes
A lot of phones I have seen are starting to standardize on USB, which they should have done 10 years ago. My Motorola Nextel, my friend's Asian Windows Mobile Sprint, and another friend's Palm Sprint all use USB. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >I personally would love to see this pass FCC. > > Large companies have a huge advantage over Small providers, because Money > is > cheap to them, so they CAN fincance gears, and do the give aways. > I'd like it to be more painful for them to give it away. I hate this > perception that Equipment should be "free". > > What would likely occur though is that the large companies would just add > a > second line item "lease fee", and say OK Cancel, but its your phone, so > continue paying the lease for a phone that you can't use. > > Personally I think the bigger racket is unique connector concept, where > every new Phone model has a different charger connector. Not only is it > not > portable between providers, but its not portable to new models within the > same provider. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Frank Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> Travis, >> Put a different name on it like "Equipment removal fee" and drive on. >> Frank >> - Original Message - >> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:51 PM >> Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> >>> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html >>> >>> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >>> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >>> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. >>> :( >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.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] FCC changes
The government should not restrict a company's ability to charge an early termination fee. Consumers are offered a lower startup price and lower monthly price because they commit to being a customer for a specified amount of time. If the government MUST get involved, perhaps require an option for service without an early termination penalty, which most companies offer... It's called paying full price for the phone or installation. Free cell phones actually cost the company a couple hundred dollars. When I install fixed wireless customers for my company, their committal to my company for a specified amount of time allows me to charge less for a startup fee because I know I'll make that money up in monthly fees over time. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 10:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes > This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html > > We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost > on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). > Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > > 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] FCC changes
I have a $275 install and I still have people not paying their bills. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Blair Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Well, our cheapest install has always been $200 and I just raised it to > $250. Prices go up from there. We also have a 1 month ROI on our > installs. (install fee + 1st month service pays for the install) > > We also do not do contracts... everything is month to month. > > While the price of the install can be a barrier, it also screens out a > lot of those who will not pay their monthly bill. > > > Travis Johnson wrote: >> Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and >> WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >> >>> Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to >>> charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser >>> WAVELINC >>> P.O. Box 126 >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>> 419-562-6405 >>> www.wavelinc.com >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List >>> Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes >>> >>> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 >>> 776.html >>> >>> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >>> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >>> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. >>> :( >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 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.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.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] FCC changes
Whether it is the "job" of the FCC to ensure fairness with regards to telecommunications contracts is yet to be determined. Traditionally, STATE COURTS have resolved contractual disputes. However, in 2005, a cell carrier named SunCom filed a petition with the FCC asking the FCC to declare that early termination fees fall under "rate charged" doctrine and therefore fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FCC (thus blocking STATE COURTS from rendering decisions against the cell carrier). The FCC has held comment on the issue and was thought to be getting close to a ruling on the issue when SunCom suddenly and unexpectedly SETTLED their case (March 21, 2008) with their client(s) and dropped the petition for the declaratory ruling. The net effect is that the FCC hasn't decided whether early termination fees as a contractual issue are strictly a FEDERAL issue to be decided by the FCC or if they are a traditional common law issue to be decided at the state level. The meetings later this month may shed some further light on how ETF's will be adjudicated in the future. It certainly appears that the FCC is moving towards regulation of the marketplace. Don't take my comments to be weighing in favor of FCC regulation of this issue. I believe that state courts could certainly resolve these disputes just as well as the FCC (albeit inconsistently across state lines). Common law contract law as well as consumer protection statutes would address many of the concerns that have been raised with regards to early termination fees. The problem that we have today is that many state & federal courts have placed litigation regarding early termination fees on hold UNTIL the FCC declares whether or not they are going to completely preempt the field of telecommunication termination fees. This indecision by the FCC has held up litigation for up to three years in state and federal courts. The main thing that we need right now is definitive action of some sort so that subscribers have rights either in state court or before the FCC and so that PROVIDERS have some sense of direction with regards to their obligations or limitations under common law and regulatory regimes. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes - Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Travis, > > I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a > contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the > terms of the agreement. > > The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than > recoup > costs. Again... So? It is not the job of government to "ensure" that everything a customer chooses to do is "made fair" for him. 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] FCC changes
- Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Travis, > > I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a > contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the > terms of the agreement. > > The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than > recoup > costs. Again... So? It is not the job of government to "ensure" that everything a customer chooses to do is "made fair" for him. 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] FCC changes
- Original Message - From: "Larry Yunker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early > termination fee issue. The underlying concern is that early termination > fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting > provider > as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract. I can only answer... So? It is not the FCC's job to ensure that profits are not made. 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] FCC changes
Travis, I agree wholeheartedly that a customer should be held to the terms of a contract and certainly should be responsible for reading and accepting the terms of the agreement. The issue is that some contracts are designed to penalize rather than recoup costs. The measure of a breach of contract is always supposed to be the loss on that individual contract not a penalty to help cover the costs lost on other contracts. (i.e. the cost shifting discussed below). Absent some showing of fraud or similar abuse, there are no penalties recognized at law in contracts. So, to the extent that a termination fee is imposed to penalize an unwilling party to the contract, the fee is invalid. - Larry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 2:41 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes Or really, the consumer could just read the contract before they sign it. Problem solved. ;) Travis Microserv Larry Yunker wrote: > I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early > termination fee issue. The underlying concern is that early termination > fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting provider > as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract. > > > > In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of > the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost > includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which has > been lost due to that customer. Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end of > his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered. > > > > The problems that arise are these: > > (1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the > equipment/installation, so companies "average-out" losses by cost-shifting. > > > > For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms > with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and > installation worth $350.00. Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service > Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment. Customer B drops in month 23 > so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment. > The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00 > by overcharging Customer B. This system shifts the cost burden from those > who drop early to those who drop late. > > > > (2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and > installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal. If > customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs > $350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not buy > at all. Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber understood > that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200, they > might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. > > > > (3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service > and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an > oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative > provider. > > For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term > with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the customer > $40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to > respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract. During > that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination > than they do through the subscription fees! > > > > Potential Solutions to these problems: > > (1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation, equipment, > and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees. > > (2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of > installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty > idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along > through subscription fees). > > (3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the cost-shifting > described above CANNOT OCCUR. > > (4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the prorated > balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to switch > to that new provider. Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance will > be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a win-win > for the new provider and the new customer. > > (5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or provide > some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that co
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
For us, the issue is the pickup and de-installation of the equipment. We have customers 2+ hours drive away from our office. If they sign up and pay $49 for install (we already lose $50 for the time to install it), and only keep it for a month, then I have lost several hundred dollars on that customer by rolling a truck TWICE, setting up billing, contract time, installer time, etc. and there is no way to recover those costs. Travis Microserv John J. Thomas wrote: Let's talk about this for a minute. When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. If you, as a WISP say here are your options 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns the equipment How will you lose? John Thomas -Original Message- From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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.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] FCC changes
of outside interference, but > the concept remains the same. Set a baseline, set a minimum threshold and > create a procedure for testing against that threshold. > > > > Well that's my two cents worth. hopefully some of these ideas make it > through to the powers-that-be in D.C. > > > > > > Larry Yunker, J.D. > > Network Consultant > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes > > > > This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 > 776.html > > > > We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost > > on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). > > Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > > > > > > 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.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] FCC changes
I think that the FCC has a bona fide reason for addressing the early termination fee issue. The underlying concern is that early termination fees often do not reflect the true cost incurred by the contracting provider as a result of the subscriber's breach of contract. In reality, an early termination fee should be prorated over the course of the contract such that at the beginning of the contract term, the cost includes the full cost of equipment, installation, and acquisition which has been lost due to that customer. Whereas, as the subscriber nears the end of his term, there should be very little cost remaining to be recovered. The problems that arise are these: (1) Early termination fees are often too low to cover the full cost of the equipment/installation, so companies "average-out" losses by cost-shifting. For example assume Customer A and Customer B both sign up for 2 year terms with a $200.00 early termination fee and each received equipment and installation worth $350.00. Customer A drops in month 1, so the Service Provider loses its entire $350.00 investment. Customer B drops in month 23 so the Service Provider has recouped most 95% of its $350.00 investment. The Service Provider loses $150.00 on Customer A but gains roughly $182.00 by overcharging Customer B. This system shifts the cost burden from those who drop early to those who drop late. (2) Customers are usually not made aware of the costs of the equipment and installation that they are receiving as part of their package deal. If customer's understood that their neat new Razor phone actually costs $350.00, they might opt to keep their old phone longer or they might not buy at all. Similarly in the broadband arena, if the DSL subscriber understood that the DSL/Wireless router costs $100 and the DSLAM port costs $200, they might think twice before signing up for 2 years at $20.00 a month. (3) Providers lose some of their incentive to maintain quality service and/or customer service when they know that their clients are under an oppressive contract which limits their ability to choose an alternative provider. For example: If a provider knows that their customer is on a 2 year term with a $200.00 early termination fee and that provider charges the customer $40.00 per month for service, the provider has very little incentive to respond to the customer during the last 5 months of the contract. During that period, the provider stands to gain more from the early termination than they do through the subscription fees! Potential Solutions to these problems: (1)Require disclosure and option to pay actual installation, equipment, and acquisition fees in lieu of early termination fees. (2)Require that cancellation fees reflect the actual cost of installation, equipment, and acquisition fees. (This one is pretty idealistic. providers will almost always eat some cost and pass it along through subscription fees). (3)Require proration of early termination fees so that the cost-shifting described above CANNOT OCCUR. (4)Allow/Encourage/Require? competing providers to buy-out the prorated balance of any early termination fee for a new customer that wants to switch to that new provider. Often the cost of buying out a prorated balance will be less than the cost of new customer acquisition, so it would be a win-win for the new provider and the new customer. (5)Encourage interoperability of equipment between providers or provide some realistic secondary market for customer equipment so that costs of switching carriers could be mitigated. Make "locking phones" and/or CPE illegal wherever the customer "owns" the equipment. (6)Provide a mechanism for regulation of minimum standards of service, if a provider cannot meet the minimum standard of service then a customer should be released from his contract without penalty and the equipment should be returned to the provider. a.This idea could be established in the cell phone industry by recording a baseline of coverage within the first 30 days of new service and comparing changes in coverage to that first 30 day baseline. If the coverage drops significantly from the baseline then the customer would have a basis for dropping without penalty. In the fixed wireless business, this process could be more difficult due to the uncertainty of outside interference, but the concept remains the same. Set a baseline, set a minimum threshold and create a procedure for testing against that threshold. Well that's my two cents worth. hopefully some of these ideas make it through to the powers-that-be in D.C. Larry Yunker, J.D. Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes This could
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
Ever since I started 4 yrs ago I have done $199 install and $35 a month. Last month I switched to $209 install and $35 a month (to help cover gas). I own the gear and go get it if they cancel. Brian John J. Thomas wrote: Let's talk about this for a minute. When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. If you, as a WISP say here are your options 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns the equipment How will you lose? John Thomas -Original Message- From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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.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] FCC changes
When it is a regulation of common resources, like cellular spectrum, they have to attempt to enforce fairness and foster competition. Problem is when they craft a fix for cell or ILEC or IXC and it spills over into other areas they regulate. - Original Message - From: "Kurt Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 12:35 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >I think the FCC should drop it and let capitalism take its course. > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of John J. Thomas > Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:01 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > > Let's talk about this for a minute. > > When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the > rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. > > If you, as a WISP say here are your options > > 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want > 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns > the > equipment > > How will you lose? > > John Thomas > > >>-Original Message----- >>From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >>I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their > boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another > area > I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. >> >>Scottie >> >>-- Original Message -- >>From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: WISPA General List >>Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 >> >>> >> >>Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. >>Check out www.info-ed.com for information. >> >> >>--- > - >>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.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] FCC changes
That will still happen. We give many free installs and $49 installs. We have to to compete with Qwest and Comcast. I also provide a free DSL modem to all DSL customers. Depends on your scale and competition. Why would AT&T not provide a free DSL modem? - Original Message - From: "John J. Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Let's talk about this for a minute. > > When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the > rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. > > If you, as a WISP say here are your options > > 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want > 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns > the equipment > > How will you lose? > > John Thomas > > >>-Original Message- >>From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM >>To: 'WISPA General List' >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >>I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their >>boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another >>area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. >> >>Scottie >> >>-- Original Message -- >>From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: WISPA General List >>Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 >> >>> >> >>Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. >>Check out www.info-ed.com for information. >> >> >> >>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.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] FCC changes
I think the FCC should drop it and let capitalism take its course. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John J. Thomas Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 1:01 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes Let's talk about this for a minute. When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. If you, as a WISP say here are your options 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns the equipment How will you lose? John Thomas >-Original Message- >From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > >I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. > >Scottie > >-- Original Message -- >From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: WISPA General List >Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 > >> > >Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. >Check out www.info-ed.com for information. > > >--- - >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.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] FCC changes
Let's talk about this for a minute. When I signed up for my $24.95 DSL, ATT *gave* me a free DSL modem- if the rules change, that won't be able to happen anymore. If you, as a WISP say here are your options 1. Pay $299 install, and the client can do whatever they want 2. Pay $49 install and a *lease* fee of $22 per month, and the WISP owns the equipment How will you lose? John Thomas >-Original Message- >From: Scottie Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 02:58 PM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > >I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their >boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I >think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. > >Scottie > >-- Original Message -- >From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: WISPA General List >Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 > >> > >Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. >Check out www.info-ed.com for information. > > > >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] FCC changes
Did we learn nothing from my last outburst?We can't say the FCC is overstepping it's bounds, that's just radical conspiracy style politics, remember? And if we tell the FCC it has overstepped it's bounds, the poor souls we send to DC will just be twisting in the wind, red-faced at our redneck-ish non-compliance. Or, perhaps I was right.Give an inch, they take a mile and we get NADA in return. - Original Message - From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 2:58 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes >I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their >boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another >area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. > > Scottie > 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] FCC changes
I personally would love to see this pass FCC. Large companies have a huge advantage over Small providers, because Money is cheap to them, so they CAN fincance gears, and do the give aways. I'd like it to be more painful for them to give it away. I hate this perception that Equipment should be "free". What would likely occur though is that the large companies would just add a second line item "lease fee", and say OK Cancel, but its your phone, so continue paying the lease for a phone that you can't use. Personally I think the bigger racket is unique connector concept, where every new Phone model has a different charger connector. Not only is it not portable between providers, but its not portable to new models within the same provider. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Frank Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2008 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC changes > Travis, > Put a different name on it like "Equipment removal fee" and drive on. > Frank > - Original Message - > From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:51 PM > Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes > > >> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html >> >> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. >> :( >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> >> >> 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.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] FCC changes
Travis, Put a different name on it like "Equipment removal fee" and drive on. Frank - Original Message - From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:51 PM Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes > This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html > > We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost > on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). > Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > > 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] FCC changes
I agree Travis. This will "hurt." The FCC seems to be overstepping their boundaries alot the last few months on many issues, and this is another area I think they should stay out of. Just my 2 cents. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: WISPA General List Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:40:04 -0600 > Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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] FCC changes
I'm sure you are much larger than I! If I can ask, in that same time period, April, how many disconnects (for non-payment) and quits did you have? I've made it a point to avoid churn and most often only loose a user when cable or DSL comes into his area with their $14.95 a month deal... Travis Johnson wrote: > Hi, > > For whatever it's worth, we have often followed the cell companies in > many ways (not intentionally, it just seems to work out that way). We > are often on towers close to their towers, we often follow the same > backhaul paths that they use, etc. We also followed their > activation/billing practices starting about 5 years ago. We charge a > small install fee (usually $99) and then make the customer sign at > least a 1 year contract, with benefits for 2 and 3 year contracts. We > then make a profit on the customer the very first month and every > month afterwards, and have them in a contract (which makes the > customer worth something if you ever look at selling). Customers not > in a contract are worth about 50% less because they could easily > switch during or after the sale of the business. > > We did 160 installs in April, so we must be doing something right. > This FCC thing could cause a lot of companies problems because it > would completely upset the current business model. How many people > will sign up for cell service if they have to buy a $300 cell phone? > The days of the "free" phone will be gone. > > Travis > Microserv > > Blair Davis wrote: >> Well, our cheapest install has always been $200 and I just raised it to >> $250. Prices go up from there. We also have a 1 month ROI on our >> installs. (install fee + 1st month service pays for the install) >> >> We also do not do contracts... everything is month to month. >> >> While the price of the install can be a barrier, it also screens out a >> lot of those who will not pay their monthly bill. >> >> >> Travis Johnson wrote: >> >>> Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and >>> WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. >>> >>> Travis >>> Microserv >>> >>> Kurt Fankhauser wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to >>>> charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. >>>> >>>> Kurt Fankhauser >>>> WAVELINC >>>> P.O. Box 126 >>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >>>> 419-562-6405 >>>> www.wavelinc.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -Original Message- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >>>> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List >>>> Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes >>>> >>>> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 >>>> 776.html >>>> >>>> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >>>> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >>>> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( >>>> >>>> Travis >>>> Microserv >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>>
Re: [WISPA] FCC changes
Hi, For whatever it's worth, we have often followed the cell companies in many ways (not intentionally, it just seems to work out that way). We are often on towers close to their towers, we often follow the same backhaul paths that they use, etc. We also followed their activation/billing practices starting about 5 years ago. We charge a small install fee (usually $99) and then make the customer sign at least a 1 year contract, with benefits for 2 and 3 year contracts. We then make a profit on the customer the very first month and every month afterwards, and have them in a contract (which makes the customer worth something if you ever look at selling). Customers not in a contract are worth about 50% less because they could easily switch during or after the sale of the business. We did 160 installs in April, so we must be doing something right. This FCC thing could cause a lot of companies problems because it would completely upset the current business model. How many people will sign up for cell service if they have to buy a $300 cell phone? The days of the "free" phone will be gone. Travis Microserv Blair Davis wrote: Well, our cheapest install has always been $200 and I just raised it to $250. Prices go up from there. We also have a 1 month ROI on our installs. (install fee + 1st month service pays for the install) We also do not do contracts... everything is month to month. While the price of the install can be a barrier, it also screens out a lot of those who will not pay their monthly bill. Travis Johnson wrote: Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. Travis Microserv Kurt Fankhauser wrote: Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 776.html We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( Travis Microserv 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.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.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] FCC changes
Well, our cheapest install has always been $200 and I just raised it to $250. Prices go up from there. We also have a 1 month ROI on our installs. (install fee + 1st month service pays for the install) We also do not do contracts... everything is month to month. While the price of the install can be a barrier, it also screens out a lot of those who will not pay their monthly bill. Travis Johnson wrote: > Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and > WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. > > Travis > Microserv > > Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > >> Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to >> charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. >> >> Kurt Fankhauser >> WAVELINC >> P.O. Box 126 >> Bucyrus, OH 44820 >> 419-562-6405 >> www.wavelinc.com >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List >> Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes >> >> This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 >> 776.html >> >> We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost >> on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). >> Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> >> >> >> 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.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] FCC changes
Exactly... which will pretty much stop our installs... cable, DSL and WiMAX providers will continue to do free installs. Travis Microserv Kurt Fankhauser wrote: > Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to > charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. > > Kurt Fankhauser > WAVELINC > P.O. Box 126 > Bucyrus, OH 44820 > 419-562-6405 > www.wavelinc.com > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List > Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes > > This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 > 776.html > > We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost > on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). > Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( > > Travis > Microserv > > > > > 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.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] FCC changes
Well lets say we can't charge early termination anymore, We are back to charging $300/install and paying $400 for a cellphone. Kurt Fankhauser WAVELINC P.O. Box 126 Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 www.wavelinc.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] FCC changes This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002 776.html We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( Travis Microserv 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] FCC changes
This could turn in to something it shouldn't really fast... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/30/AR2008053002776.html We charge 100% of the remaining contract because we are eating the cost on the equipment and rolling a truck (for both installation and pickup). Now they want to regulate how much we can charge for early termination. :( Travis Microserv 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/
