At 12/20/2010 07:56 PM, Jeromie wrote: >While I do agree with the idea that we need less regulation of (fixed) >wireless and a lower barrier to entry for cellular wireless, I would >like to knwo what parts of this particular proposal you have a issue >with. I, personally, would love to see the layer 1 and layer 2+ be >forcably broken apart for wired isps (IE, if you are a ILEC, you must >have a separate business entity run the 2+, with set prices for >everyone who wants to be a layer 2+ entity on that layer 1 network) >with wireless getting a mix of this (unlicensed is not bound to layer >1/2+ split, with some licensed being (like cellular) and some licensed >not being bound (like 3.65, sub 700) and opening more spectrum (that >is a mix of bound and non-bound) and see where that takes us. Time to >wake up and go pickup the kids.
That's what I asked for too, separation of the ILEC services into wholesale lower layers and multiple providers of unregulated upper layers. But the FCC is more likely to attempt, without statutory authority, to regulate all ISPs' layer 7 offerings, with exemptions for CMRS and maybe some leeway on a case-by-case basis for WISPs. But since they lack authority over Part 15 content, they probably can't act. The rule exists to allow the ILEC to attack its competitors, not to protect consumers. >On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:30 PM, MDK <rea...@muddyfrogwater.us> wrote: > > No, we LOST. You see, once they have the power, they have the > power. It > > is not a victory to be partially regulated, or to get "partial exemption". > > > > I cannot imagine why industry is rolling over and playing dead for this. > > > > As far as I'm concerned it's "come and arrest me, coppers" and I will damn > > well NOT comply. > > > > And if we all did that. They'd just give up. But we're too chicken to > > stand up for ourselves, as a country, anymore, apparently. I don't know > > when people forgot that according to the Constitution, we tell the > > government what to do and where to get off, not the other way around. > > > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy > > 541-969-8200 509-386-4589 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > From: Joe Fiero > > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:12 PM > > To: 'WISPA General List' > > Subject: [WISPA] Flexible rules promised for wireless > > > > It's good to see all our efforts pay off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > REUTERS updated 2 minutes ago 2010-12-20T21:45:55 > > > > WASHINGTON The Federal Communications Commission is expected to adopt > > Internet traffic rules on Tuesday that would ban the blocking of lawful > > content, but allow high-speed Internet providers to manage their networks, > > senior agency officials said Monday. > > > > Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn had expressed concerns with > > the proposal laid out by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski early this month, > > but senior FCC officials said they had come to an agreement and > are expected > > to vote in favor of the rules. > > > > Genachowski proposed banning the blocking of lawful traffic but allowing > > Internet providers to manage network congestion and charge consumers based > > on Internet usage. > > > > The rules would be more flexible for wireless broadband, > Genachowski said in > > a previous speech, acknowledging that wireless is at an earlier stage of > > development than terrestrial Internet service. > > > > -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
