I see in the WISPA Code of Ethics this line:
e) Use proper diligence to ensure that all materials on their networks
are restricted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and the
tenets of reasonable precaution.
If this needs to be worded differently then maybe this would suffice? I
Why should WISPA take any stance on what a wisp uses to conduct business?
What business is it of others what anyone else does?
If the FCC thought what was going on was a terrible thing, they would
have said so.
WISPA's efforts towards compliance may be slow, but there is now
certified
Responses inline...
Why should WISPA take any stance on what a wisp uses to conduct business?
Because you are our industry organization
What business is it of others what anyone else does?
Anyone who wants to see the industry operate in a proper and legal
manner.
If the FCC thought what
Please expand upon this statement...
I simply asked WISPA to publish a position on illegal operation. That
doesn't mean to push it off on some code of ethics.
What kind of written statement would carry more weight than the code of
ethics?
Please describe how any such written statement would
Ralph
You see the industry through a very narrow set of blinders. There is a
whole lot more players than you or I.
I'm not impressed with any YDI certified system that you think you may
have, I too have certified YDI systems still in place and YDI sold me
and lots of others quite a bit of
George Rogato wrote:
One thing you have been successful at is ending most discussions of
what people are using, their accomplishments or plain old advice on
this list. I bet a lot of guys are scared with your FCC insinuations
not to bother posting anything to this list.
I don't think you can
Matt
Seeing you and Ralph are business constituants and shoulder to shoulder,
I wouldn't expect you to stray from the party line
Matt Liotta wrote:
George Rogato wrote:
One thing you have been successful at is ending most discussions of
what people are using, their accomplishments or
I gather that this is a response of the ad hominem variety Matt just
predicted, but could you clarify your meaning? Aren't we all businesses (and
constituents, business and otherwise)?
On 9/2/07, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt
Seeing you and Ralph are business constituants and
I am not sure that a position paper is required, but I will offer a few
opinions based on some of what I have seen this post generate in responses.
Though I am not currently 100% compliant with the FCC rules nor a
member, I wish I were both. Even after 1 full year of research into
what I
Please expand upon this statement...
Because you agree that WISPA supports only certified systems through a
ethics statement, does not conclude that WISPA as a professional
organization supports the use of only certified systems.
I do not see how this statement makes any sense. The
George- I already listed the vendors our WISP uses, and I have never
mentioned anything from YDI. I haven't a clue where you got that idea. I
have never purchased a single thing from them. Again for the record: Our
WISP uses Tranzeo, Canopy, Deliberant and Ligowave. All certified APs and
client
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Scott Reed wrote:
So I am 100% behind Ralph wanting to be assured that WISPA is all
about being legal.
WISPA put this in the Code of Ethics. The organization is certainly
all about being legal.
I also agree with Ralph's opening comment about getting more
latitude in
I have tried to share what I believe are good paths to proceed for WISPs
and WISPA and mostly all I get back are rude comments and smug lashes at
my character here. I have too many things going to be bothered with all
the divisive rhetoric and sniping attitudes from many on this list
server. I
It doesn't really help, when attempting to clarify a misunderstood or
confusing
statement, to say the same thing over again.
You asserted, in your posting, that the position of WISPA as stated in the
code of ethics, did not meet the requirement in your opinion of being the
official stance of
14 matches
Mail list logo
