On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 09:36:49 -0600, John Scrivner wrote > The government cannot request data with a note saying it is > confidential and then turn around and say it is not. That is not > going to fly. If my data is shared with others then I will file suit > against the FCC myself. Peter, how can you possibly support the idea > that it is ok for confidential data to be gathered and then shared > because the ILECs want it shared? The FCC is not withholding this > information to be annoying or secretive. They are doing so because > confidentiality was assured when the data was gathered. > > If this data is shared then Mark Koskenmaki and others were right in > saying we should not fill out those forms. For now I will do it > because it is a requirement according to the governing law of the > land. If this bites me then I will be the first to tell you I was > wrong in supporting the Form 477 process. For now the data is still > not being shared and the form process is still a matter of law, like > it or not. Scriv >
You invoked my name, but let me clear something up... If the FCC loses in court, exactly who is to blame? The FCC? Hardly. The court system? Maybe. Who? I dunno. I was opposed on the grounds that the government shouldn't know this in the first place, not that it will get spread around. My reasoning was that there's really no Constitutional justification for demanding the information. That someone will come along later and get to that information when it was promised to be confidential... well... even WISPA could find itself in that position if it collected it. I don't know why or how WISPA could get sued, but I don't think any of us foresaw the FCC getting sued until it happened, did we? And if WISPA got sued, what deep pockets would exist to pay the lawyers to fight it? That the case isn't summarily dismissed is a bad sign... Not that the FCC will lose, I don't know, but that the mere accusation of "fudging numbers" about how many people can get broadband is JUSTIFICATION FOR REVEALING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Do you get how flimsy that appears? Any old political goal or wish is justification for demanding data and it really IS at risk, since summary judgement hasn't occurred, the court is seriously considering the idea valid. Plaintiff: "We think your policies might not be perfect, so we can sue, get the data you collect under promise of confidentiality, and spread it around the internet to use in a campaign to get you to change policies or have you as an agency absolished, or at least your people replaced." Court: "Absolutely, your goals definitely trump any objections from businesses about confidentiality". Seems hard to imagine, but right now, that is precisely what's going on. Here's what I see happening as a "solution" to this: The FCC asks Congress to pass a law demanding we file... AND codifying confidentiality into law. Congress does this, and at the same time requires you to now obtain federal licensing to be an ISP and that licensing will not be granted until you provide proof of CALEA compliance and a host of other "important" things they suddenly get lobbied to include... All in the name of "protecting the consumer" of course... competence, adequacy, universal coverage, non- discrimination in who you serve, blah, blah, blah. And 95% of us close our doors and go to work for McDonald's to pay off our debts. I said long ago that opening the door and walking into the realm of "federally regulated services" is a guillotine for small businesses. There is no future for small business in federally regulated services. Never has been. We should have been fighting this from day one, not walking in like a wide eyed lamb. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
