----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to BreaktheLaw...That is theQuestion
> John, > > I support your view. > We can not assume that the FCC's intent for Wireless is evil, just because > there is huge lobby efforts by our competitors (Cable and Telephone) and > Lots of debate at the FCC to address equality issues regarding VOIP, that > has generated much hippocracy and trouble in the FCC and Governement. For > example, I don't think there is any evidence that gathering Data on WISPs is > for the purpose to establish a basis for Taxing. Tom, you're misunderstanding what people are saying here. Nowhere have I said that the present intent is "evil". The stated goal is PROBABLY what they say it is. Assuming the "given" that is what it is, that does NOT preclude future use for things that will harm us. It is the NATURE OF GOVERNMENT REGULATION TO HARM BUSINESS. They regulate for political purposes ( Does "We'll give them 911 service" ring any bells?) and we, the small guys, get whipsawed into bankruptcy. A database doesn't have to be gathered for the purpose of taxing. It merely has to exist, to be USED for taxing, for regulating, for mandates. Nothing mysterious about that. And as we can see, mandates arrive without any public request for them, taxes arrive without ANY recourse or warning. Intent isn't even an issue. I don't care what the "intent" is, that is irrelevant. It's what it can be used for that matters, because they WILL use it for that, history has made this as clear as sunrise in the desert. > The support of Wireless has been nothing but possitive from the FCC and ALL > their officials. Even with lacking support for 700Mhz, its not because of > lack of support for WISPs, but because the strength of the counter view > broadcasting industry. Its important that Wireless provider show proof that > they are a large enough size to be considered part of the solution. The only > way wireless providers are going to start getting grand money and funds from > governements to help them grow, is for them to show their possitive unique > contributions. The ONLY reason, I could see that reporting would be a > negative thing, is that if most WISPs actually have fewer subscribers than > they represent, and they don't want to let the FCC know the truth, because > if they do, they won't be recognized adequately because their small scale, > and WISPs do not want to lie and create a record of untruth. Wrong. We don't want "The hammer" coming to smash us. Giving them that much knowledge is fatal. period. Doesn't matter if that's not what they want it for, doesn't matter if the knowledge itself will "give" us other things. They will take far more than they give - that is indisputable. We have the history of every industry that becomes regulated. Eventually, it evolves to one or a few monopolies. And it took how many years of lawsuits to break up Ma Bell? Gee, ISP's fought tooth and nail to get UNE's and then lost it in a court fight. I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO LIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, where my fate hangs NOT in my own initiative and creativity, but at the whims of someone I granted power over me. > > Wireless is not a young indistry at this point. It took DSL 5 years to reach > mass penetration. I personally have been in this industry for 5 years, and > haven;t met mass penetration yet :-) Why are we growing so slowly. Showing > a small subscriber base, could tell the FCC they need to favor companies > that have quicker growth potential, like the ILECs and Cable companies that > are taking on millions of customers. Give them the spectrum to deploy > quicker than small WISPs can do. Thats my fear. Then fear away. Registering WISP's will not affect that future one tiny smidgeon. > > But the truth is, if numbers are low, that has to be shown, so we can make > cases to the FCC why the numbers are low, and how they can help us get past > the barriers that are slowing us. Does the FCC realize that Wireless > providers in teh Urban america have such slow growth because lack of > easements? Do Otard rules need to be expanded? Are higher power levels > needed in spectrum, etc. Manufacturers have to much pull with the FCC, > because they can backup their requests with billions of dollars in sales. > Can we the WISP community? If the hammer comes to smash us, certainly not. We won't even exist, and we, the operators, and our customers, will be the only mourners. > > I think we have to try. We need EVERY SINGLE PERSON REPORTING making our > numbers higher. Because we need to be recognized as a group that NEEDS > assistance, Because we are helping Society today. IF more people had > reported, maybe we would ahve had more favoratism with the 700Mhz debates? We might. But the loss will far outweigh any gains. North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061 personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net Fast Internet, NO WIRES! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] To Break the Law or Not to Break theLaw...That is > theQuestion > > > > There is going to have to be a compromise here guys. We will not be > > putting together the composite subscriber data for the FCC. There are no > > provisions for it. We can ask but then quite frankly I am not too keen on > > telling them that most of our members here seem to be reluctant to tell > > them who they are. > > > > We have to determine how the form has created this belief among you that > > the FCC is going to use it for harm. I want to see real answers here and > > not just conspiracy theories. If the FCC did not ask for the source of the > > information then what would stop us from telling them we had 10 times more > > customers than we had? There is no accountability if the data cannot be > > verified. Why is it assumed by all of you that the same organization who > > created unlicensed spectrum policy is now going to find some way of > > destroying the industry that was created by that policy:? > > Scriv > > > > > > Brian Rohrbacher wrote: > > > >> > >>> > >>> Let's just get clear right up front... It appears you believe that if > >>> we > >>> all appear to be good boy scouts and have feel-good politics, we're more > >>> likely to get what we want considered. I disagree. I dont' think > >>> it'll > >>> get us even 3 seconds reconsideration. But I do believe if we make > >>> forceful and logical, and well-reasoned arguments, it far outweighs > >>> whether > >>> or not some of us are more than just a little atagonistic toward being > >>> counted, filed, folded, spindled, and reported. > >>> > >> If we start rolling over now, they will ask for more and more and > >> more........... If all they want is the number of subs, then lets all > >> turn info into WISPA and WISPA can give the lump number. Why do they > >> freakin need to know if I wear boxers or briefs? > >> > >> Ever heard of http://www.fire-the-senate.com/ > >> > >> It's time for....... > >> http://www.fire-the-fcc.com/ > >> > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
