Thanks...I was not writing this as if it were a mature proposal... but rather as something to stimulate debate. I'm sure that other people see pitfalls in things I don't, and may perceive unintended consequences I have not. I don't consider it be anywhere near "best of all worlds", but it seems both sellable and viable, in our political and economic climate, and it's structure is one of a self-exterminating subsidy, save a very few extremely remote places.
I had further thoughts about this... 1. The "area" of coverage needs to be small. That is, coverage for an "area" definition should be no larger than a zip code. The point being that such granularity yields up the ability to actually COVER some place without being a multi-million dollar operation. That the areas in question should be defined as those having common economic ties, and separation by geography should result in area boundaries. By its very nature, this would initially encourage a lot of extisting competition to expand coverage, and then would achieve the goals we all see as worthy. And end any subsidy permanently. 2. That ISP's should be able to freely contract with each other to "cover" an area. Let's imagine some smallish town in Wyoming, where a WISP opens up shop. This hypothetical zip code boundary is served by a WISP, except for one area that's served by a remote DSLAM from another town. The original ISP located in this area doesn't cover that small isolated area because it's already served, and because geography makes it very difficult. In this case, the ISP in the area can contract with the isp that serves the small bit, reaching the 95% threshold... The serving provider then applies for and gets the rebate for those he serves, and the contracted ISP gets the same - but only for those in that region contracted by the local provider. Imagine two WISP's who share a zip code, where one serves the northern part, and one the southern part. One can become the original and contract with his competitor legally, to achieve a "single provider" coverage for a whole area, and whatever subsidy is paid directly to the serving provider, though each makes up only a part of a region and the two together really only equal a single whole. What I've suggested is a stance by WISPA that can and will be criticized by at least some as being "ideological". I consider it a practical stance, not ideological, but that's just me. Before WISPA and its members take any such stand, it should be consider "A big deal", and debated by the membership as such. If, for instance, WISPA did adopt such a stand.... My harsh criticism would end and I would financially support WISPA, as that was and remains my original belief in what a trade organization should be doing. Though we're a business, we're all citizens at the same time, and our collective stand should be conservative, sober, and one of national fiscal responsibility. That may make WISPA unique, but it seems like a stand that would be applauded and promoted widely by a lot of people with extreme concern for their country... and for general direction of our national character. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian Webster" <bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:25 AM To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Subject: Re: [WISPA] How the FCC Proposes the Regulate Broadband > Mark, > This is an interesting and well thought out proposal. Thank you for > taking the time to post and for also not making it politically charged. It > might be a good idea to create a condensed version of this proposal with > simple bullet points. Politicians and other government officials have a > short attention span so a Readers Digest version of this same idea would > help in gathering interest and support for the concept. If they express > serious interest, a more detailed description can be presented to them. > Having to read your full description will get lost on those who skim ideas > in the interest of saving time. A condensed version would also be easier > to > present to the proper WISPA committees to begin discussion. I know quite a > few WISPA members do not read the general list in as much detail as they > do > other lists. I'd be willing to present your concept to the proper > committees > for consideration. > > > > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
