Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
ility for them to grab a $24K check to give to a bank for the actual down payment on a different mtg hits All on the backs of - yes you guessed it. - I just had my agent in Ohio ask me about doing this - and wanting to know If I wanted to back date the purchase for my wife to last year ! Its fraud - wrong - and I said no... But how many will ? > The fact is the Government should continue making it easier to obtain homes. > They just need to tighten up on fraud. > I agree and disagree - fun to be torn like a piece of paper in the wind. Truth to be told - It is hard for Government to legislate Personal Responsibility - morally and financially. > > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > - Original Message - > From: "Glenn Kelley" > To: "WISPA General List" > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:03 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof > net-neutrality > > > Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with > you. > Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given the ability > to obtain loans - > That is an understatement. > > The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - your > a failure" > They have made it all to easy for folks to "own a home" -never even > bothering to figure out if its a worthy cause. > > Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - > much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman > in college without a job. > > Perhaps we should take a step back and simply ask - Instead of Frannie and > Freddy - perhaps The Government does not belong in the home ownership game. > If you look at the price of the average home since 1890 until today - you > will find that it appears at first to be a great investment. > However - if you adjust that thinking with the rate of inflation - you would > realize that for many - it is far from the American Dream... > The Saga of Home ownership and real estate is really one of a relatively > flat history - except for the past few years where folks were able to flip > before the drop... (2006-2007) > > Many people utilize their home as the ultimate credit card... > > They get locked into this pattern of either mortgaging to pay for their > lifestyle - or... > selling and getting bigger and better. > > Can anyone of us admit that we know so much about the real-estate market to > play the odds? > If so - then lets watch them @ the tables in Vegas for the WISPA event > > Anyhow - lets get back to the topic of the thread itself and the blog > posting I actually posted... > > here it is in its glory (or lack there of ... links however are on the blog > live ) > > > Title II of the Communications Act—the section that regulates > telecommunications common carriers is now being considered by the FCC to > oversee broadband. FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell during a talk he > gave to the Free State Foundation asked: (see First Do No Harm: A broadband > plan for Amercia) > “Exactly what kind of companies might get tangled up into this regulatory > Rubik’s Cube?…Any Internet company that offers a voice application?” … “With > this newfound authority, why stop at voice apps? Isn’t voice just another > type of data app? As the distinction between network operators and > application providers continues to blur at an eye-popping rate, how will the > government be able to keep up?” > Is Broadband able to be classified as a common carrier service? The FCC > most assuredly believes this is well within its authority – and is > exercising these “policies” not just over the agency’s ability to regulate > the NET – but if it can be classified as a common carrier service. > Comcast is suing the FCC over its Order sanctioning the company for P2P > blocking – so their ability to “regulate” needs to be clearly defined – of > course re-defining a government entity is not an easy task… however defining > ISPs as common carriers would seem suited to the FCC’s purposes, especially > if given Title II’s clear definition of what a common carrier can’t do: > “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or > unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, > regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like > communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to > make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any > particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any > particular person, cl
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
Ah Actually minimum wage earners and even the unemployed could purchase a home if they had the right person doing the paperwork. We have a customer who "was" a mortgage broker. He explained it all to me one day. If the broker had a few banks that would buy the paper, pretty much sight unseen, they could put down anything they wanted and resell the mortgage within minutes. They would charge higher interest rates based on the lack of certain documents, such an proof of employment! If unemployed, they could fill out as self employed and charge a higher rate. The type of thing that Countrywide was doing. They were paid on commission and for reselling the loan, they had no concern for the long term effects on the borrower. And of course. It fell apart. Was just a ponzi scheme. Bob- -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality > The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - > your a failure" How is that a bad thing? Financial Stability 101, go buy a home. Every family should have a home. I'm not critisizing people who have decided renting is better for them, there can be many reasons for that. But if owning a home is not something possible for the average American, and low income person, its a sad situation. >Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - >much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman >in college without a job. What planet do you live on? As the minimum wage HomeOwner drives away from their foreclosed home in their BMW I can tell in my 20 years of homebuying, Minimum Wage buyers was never an option. Sure FHA or HOC type programs might have enabled getting into a home with less money down, or subsidized homeownership for needy single parents and such. But those aren't the loans getting foreclosed on. The government made those home afffordable, even in down economies. But the minimum wage claim is rediculous. Heck, I cant even qualify for a Home Refinance, and I'm bringing home the 6 digits. The homes getting foreclosed on are the big dollar home that were more expensive than the buyer can afford with an average paying job. Getting into those homes were not minimum wage application processes. They were the show me the 2 years a Tax Returns with 6 figured. Homes that are getting foreclosed on are the Elderly. Homes that are 50-80% paid off. Where the homeowner can no longer access teh equity, because they are looked at a credit risk, because of their age or no longer holds full time job living on retirement income. Where a spouse has died, or where they were living on retirement income. Where their County property Tax skyrocketed, as neighbor's appraisals skyrocketed in the reaslestate boom, to an amount where the Tax payment was more than their original mortgage payment used to be. The problem was never low income buyers. The problem was the real Estate book reached a record high that had no alternative but to crash. Supply and Demand became so power full that homes reached price tags that only millionaires could afford, and loans were sneaked through anyway. But the new mortgage loan rules are rediculously conservative. It was the unscrupulous lenders that caused the crash, and now honorable prospective American home buyers have to pay the penalty. I can give you an example of one person, that had 75k in the bank, Had 50% equity in their home, a Fixed income from a government pension, Never missed a payment in 20 years, even had a credit score in the 700s, and was denied refinance because they couldn't prove a high enough steady income the year before. They want to see a salaried job. They want to see historical Tax returns. If someone is self employed, and does smart accounting to reduce their income and tax liabilty, it will likely mean they will no longer qualify for home ownership. In the case above the person was a land developer, and didn't sell a home the prior year because it made sense to hold on to the land until the market picks up to get a larger return. The fact is the Government should continue making it easier to obtain homes. They just need to tighten up on fraud. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Glenn Kelley" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with you. Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given t
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
Yup...opensecrets.org Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Bartosch Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 10:50 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:02 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: make campaigns post their contributions on the > internet. That's already available if the donation is over $99. Chuck WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
> The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - > your a failure" How is that a bad thing? Financial Stability 101, go buy a home. Every family should have a home. I'm not critisizing people who have decided renting is better for them, there can be many reasons for that. But if owning a home is not something possible for the average American, and low income person, its a sad situation. >Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - >much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman >in college without a job. What planet do you live on? As the minimum wage HomeOwner drives away from their foreclosed home in their BMW I can tell in my 20 years of homebuying, Minimum Wage buyers was never an option. Sure FHA or HOC type programs might have enabled getting into a home with less money down, or subsidized homeownership for needy single parents and such. But those aren't the loans getting foreclosed on. The government made those home afffordable, even in down economies. But the minimum wage claim is rediculous. Heck, I cant even qualify for a Home Refinance, and I'm bringing home the 6 digits. The homes getting foreclosed on are the big dollar home that were more expensive than the buyer can afford with an average paying job. Getting into those homes were not minimum wage application processes. They were the show me the 2 years a Tax Returns with 6 figured. Homes that are getting foreclosed on are the Elderly. Homes that are 50-80% paid off. Where the homeowner can no longer access teh equity, because they are looked at a credit risk, because of their age or no longer holds full time job living on retirement income. Where a spouse has died, or where they were living on retirement income. Where their County property Tax skyrocketed, as neighbor's appraisals skyrocketed in the reaslestate boom, to an amount where the Tax payment was more than their original mortgage payment used to be. The problem was never low income buyers. The problem was the real Estate book reached a record high that had no alternative but to crash. Supply and Demand became so power full that homes reached price tags that only millionaires could afford, and loans were sneaked through anyway. But the new mortgage loan rules are rediculously conservative. It was the unscrupulous lenders that caused the crash, and now honorable prospective American home buyers have to pay the penalty. I can give you an example of one person, that had 75k in the bank, Had 50% equity in their home, a Fixed income from a government pension, Never missed a payment in 20 years, even had a credit score in the 700s, and was denied refinance because they couldn't prove a high enough steady income the year before. They want to see a salaried job. They want to see historical Tax returns. If someone is self employed, and does smart accounting to reduce their income and tax liabilty, it will likely mean they will no longer qualify for home ownership. In the case above the person was a land developer, and didn't sell a home the prior year because it made sense to hold on to the land until the market picks up to get a larger return. The fact is the Government should continue making it easier to obtain homes. They just need to tighten up on fraud. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Glenn Kelley" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Having pastored in the nations poorest city I would far from disagree with you. Folks that should have never been able to have a home were given the ability to obtain loans - That is an understatement. The government has done all it can to push the idea that "if you rent - your a failure" They have made it all to easy for folks to "own a home" -never even bothering to figure out if its a worthy cause. Let's face it - Loans were written to people that made minimum wage - much like the first Credit card I was given with a 20K limit as a freshman in college without a job. Perhaps we should take a step back and simply ask - Instead of Frannie and Freddy - perhaps The Government does not belong in the home ownership game. If you look at the price of the average home since 1890 until today - you will find that it appears at first to be a great investment. However - if you adjust that thinking with the rate of inflation - you would realize that for many - it is far from the American Dream... The Saga of Home ownership and real estate is really one of a relatively flat history - except for the past few years where folks were able to flip before the drop... (2006-2007) Many people utilize their home as th
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
The Community Reinvestment Act was first passed in 1977. It was later changed under Bush in 1989 because of the S & L crisis. I mention this only to provide some context as to how long it has been with us and the variety of administrations that have affected it. It was really the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 that put us in the current situation with Fannie and Freddie securitizing CRA loans. That in and of itself didn't get us here. It was really the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that started us down the wrong road. This ultimately allowed companies like Goldman to create CDOs, sell them, and buy insurance against their failure all without having any interest in the underlying securities. Sorry for the history lesson, but I thought the background was useful. Understand that by 2004 only 30% of mortgages were done under CRA and in 2005 regulatory changes allowed certain banks to do less CRA mortgage lending. Thus, it just isn't credible to suggest that the CRA caused the housing crisis. Was the housing crisis created by people getting mortgages they couldn't afford? Yes, but that wasn't limited to CRA mortgages. Both parties helped get more people into houses they couldn't afford for their own reasons. -Matt On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote: > That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required > lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the > market for the paper. > > > Regards, > > Jeff > > > Jeff Broadwick > ImageStream > 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) > +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) > > -Original Message- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi > Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof > net-neutrality > > Brad, > >> People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been >> afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big >> government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. > > You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. > > Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle > class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth > continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say > that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their > losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical > choices. > What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to > foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, > before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings > instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan > taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing > nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do > holding on to their home as an investment to resale. > > And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the > opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to > make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. > > Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its > hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 > years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose > houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal > debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to > get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within > their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to > high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense > of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they > were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are > some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt > religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an > average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed. The borrower > could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of > getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission. > > Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders > approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there > is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowne
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
Thank you Jeff. You beat me to it! Best, Brad -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Broadwick Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:05 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, > People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been > afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big > government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed. The borrower could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission. Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. But many are conscience business decissions on their investment. Why do you think Obama decided to help Middle class save their homes, while they let the most needy loose their homes? A Interest rate savings canbe justified as a clear business decission that might influence the middle class home owner to want to keep their home, instead of purposely defaulting. I will agree that the Government is not taking the right approach to solve the problems. But they surely are not the cause of the problem. Assisting Americans into HomeOwnership is one of the largest success stories for America. And government assistance (such as FHA loan) was one of the answers to when the private sector was not willing to solve the problem on their own. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> Brad Belton wrote: >> Jack, >> >> >> >> Your police analogy is flawed. >> >> >> >> While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the >> safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government >> body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern >> effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than >> a small population as the laws
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
That's just not accurate Tom. The Community Reinvestment Act required lenders to do a lot of this stuff and then Fannie and Freddie created the market for the paper. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick ImageStream 800-813-5123 x106 (US/Can) +1 574-935-8484 x106 (Int'l) -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 2:19 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality Brad, > People are losing their homes.many of which never should have been > afforded the privilege of home ownership if it were not for big > government forcing lenders to lend to unqualified buyers. You had me, until the above paragraph. That is a crock of ShXX. Most housing foreclosures are conscious business decissions by the middle class, to improve their finance and cash flow. They ask, Is it worth continuing to sink money into this bad investment losing money? I will say that there are a shortage of buyer. So when an investor cant offload their losing investment (House) to someone else, they resort to less ethical choices. What does someone do if their house jsut lost 50k in value? IF they go to foreclosure, they can pretty much live rent free for a year in their home, before they are forced out. If they put their rent check in hidden savings instead, they earn 50k that year. That combined with gettting out of a loan taht is valued at mor ethan the house, it is a net $100k earning, for doing nothing. They learn they can earn more losing their home than some people do holding on to their home as an investment to resale. And governments were not the ones forcing lenders to lend. Its the opposite Government regulation is unnecessarilly setting regulations to make buying harder for consumers, to address a problem that didn't exist. Some People loose homes because a home is a 30 year commitment, and its hard for anyone to predict how one's life will pan out every year for 30 years. All it takes is one bad year, and there goes the house. People loose houses because they loose jobs. People loose houses because most personal debt is secured by their house, and loosing the house is the easiest way to get rid of the other debt. People lose houses because they cant live within their mean in other areas of their life. Or because they set their sights to high. But the biggest reason people default, is because they develop a sense of satisfaction or entitlement in screwing their lender when they feel they were taken advantage of by their lendor. Even with Bankruptcy, there are some interesing stats, for example, almost all people that go bankrupt religiously paid their bills the many years prior to, and that they had an average interest increase of 80-100% the year they filed. The borrower could have paid and wanted to pay, but whenthey felt there was no way out of getting screwed by the lender, they make a business decission. Part of the problem was dishonest overstated appraisals, and greedy lenders approving loans at values higher than the homes should be worth. Sure there is a percentage of foreclosure that are legitimate cases where the homeowner can no longer afford to pay their mortgage. But many are conscience business decissions on their investment. Why do you think Obama decided to help Middle class save their homes, while they let the most needy loose their homes? A Interest rate savings canbe justified as a clear business decission that might influence the middle class home owner to want to keep their home, instead of purposely defaulting. I will agree that the Government is not taking the right approach to solve the problems. But they surely are not the cause of the problem. Assisting Americans into HomeOwnership is one of the largest success stories for America. And government assistance (such as FHA loan) was one of the answers to when the private sector was not willing to solve the problem on their own. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >> Brad Belton wrote: >> Jack, >> >> >> >> Your police analogy is flawed. >> >> >> >> While it may take a larger police force to serve and insure the >> safety of a larger population it does not take a larger government >> body with increased invasion of those people's lives to govern >> effectively. A larger population requires no more or fewer laws than >> a small population as the laws are applied to all regardless of the >> size of population. >> >> >> >> Agreed, the more people that "give up" and begin to simply depend on >> the government to provide for them the worse our country (or any >> country) becomes. This is exactly what big government wants; the &
Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what: The FCC's role in regulationof net-neutrality
I've been on wireless lists and watched discussions about network management, traffic management, and "damage control" for what's almost a decade now.What I can say with confidence can be summed up as follows: "We in this industry have absolutely no common agreement on a vast array of network management issues".While we agree generally that such network manage must be done, we're as diverse in our approach, methods, philosophy and even goals, as we are in number. I doubt that any random pickings of 100 WISP's would, if each management approach is studied carefully, would find that there would be any "system" or "common approach" with numbers higher than 10, of WISP's who use very similar approaches to ANYTHING. Can ANYONE, with confidence, read the below statement of ideas, and come away believing the the FCC people (and far less likely Congress) could write the rules and end up even the below IDEAS in play, much less actually accomplish what they're after, while at the same time not causing any of us monster headaches, and major issues due to the fact that they just haven't any idea what the bloody heck they're doing? WE COULD NOT DO IT FOR EACH OTHER.I don't know if you'd dispute that, but that's my take. I could not write a legalese network administration rule set that wouldn't eventually result in havoc for most of you. And vice versa. "Confidence they'll make it work out well.."??? Great... what kind of supermen do they have?They can walk on water, never fart, and their feet don't stink, as well? I'd really like to meet these supermen who can not only build an all encompassing set of regulations that allow us to have full flexibility for network management, but manage to write in in LEGALESE that we can understand and implement, while keeping all the technical aspects fully transparent and intact. NOWHERE and in no place is there any evidence of this type of approach. Rather, the system becomes tightly chained down, legally codifying design, mechanism, and methods, along with legal standards and mechanisms designed to measure and define the outcomes.It has taken... errr... nearly a decade, to get INFORMAL AGREEMENT from the FCC concerning antenna substitution, and it's not ACTUALLY in the legal language of the rules, just advised as a policy concerning ENFORCEMENT. We have "de facto" modular approval to build our own stuff... But again, it's... "enforcement policy", not coded into the rules. I note with some humor that the FCC has considered itself to be 'highly flexible" and adaptable when it comes to technological change.Yet, compared to how WE need to function, it's iron bound rigidity. Let's not go fooling ourselves that net neutrality is going to be "reasonable and wise".That's the stuff of fantasies. There is no real life example to exist, and no reason to believe any earthshaking change is on the way on behalf of our Swamp on the Potomac.It's going to end up being fine grained, and will be specifying mechanisms, procedure, methods, and even defining how to arrive at a comply/not comply via detailed and specific testing. They don't have the enforcement capacity, the courts will not have "judgment" to determine what is and isn't reasonable. There will be no "reasonable" standard, it will be much like the rigidity of every other mandate.The rules will be written for THEIR convenience, and our cost and headaches are of no concern and never will be.There's no federal agency with the expertise which can understand and analyze our networks to comply with "philosophical" goals. Instead, there will be specific and detailed mandates and compliance will be... well, just don't think it'll be ... flexible.Perhaps by their standards, but that's still a rigidity and regimentation that would put the Army to shame. Somewhere, somehow, we need to make a stand... "NO more intrusion into what we do". Period. We should have been doing this before the "more" needed to be inserted into that statement, but that chance was lost before it even technically, since founding WISPA members ASKED the FCC to get involved in our business in the first place, before there was actually a WISPA. This rejection of regulatory excess isn't limited to internet provider folks.It's being thrown at EVERYONE. From very onerous rules about family farms and small producers of anything edible, to requiring you to buy a type of insurance just to be allowed to breath, and many, many other items, there's no reason to think that "reasonable" is anywhere within this government's vocabulary - at least not in a form that any of us would recognize.It's time to take a phrase from that OTHER Reagan... and "Just say no!". -- From: "Glenn Kelley" Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 12:03 AM To: "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Common Carrier or what:
