Fw: Is Low-Cost Wi-Fi Un-American?

A few comments:

1.  There is no "right to proft" in any non-regulated business no matter 
what the size of the bet that was placed or how the cash flow projections 
looked at the time.  Unlicensed spectrum existed long before these "bets" 
were made.  I guess one mans "junk" is clearly another mans gold mine.

2.  Multiple 30++ year problems have been solved many times in history by 
technology breakthoughs.  The telepraph, electricity, running water, polio 
vaccines, condoms, all quickly solved problems that were around far more 
than 30 years.  Solving the 30 year digital divide problem CAN be done 
(nearly) overnight with WiFi and WiMAX, even if an ILEC/MSO says it can't be 
done.  If you dont believe so, please check out the track record of my firm.

3. As long as governments are not paying for the network or paying for it 
but running it wholesale, there is little the ILECS can (legally) bitch 
about.  In any case, the point may be mute as we see see lots of private 
money flowing into funding these networks.

Now, for those firms that spent millions/billions on spectrum, dont worry, 
this is where WiMAX -16e shines.

tyler
www.azulstar.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Westervelt" <[email protected]>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Is Low-Cost Wi-Fi Un-American?


> So you're saying that the government should guarantee that companies can 
> make a profit regardless of the flaky business models that they're 
> applying?   I doubt that this was in anyway agreed upon in the spectrum 
> licensing process.
>
> I don't think it's the government's fault that these auctions got bid up 
> so far.
> The shareholders of these corporations should take their boards to task. 
> Big gamble, lots of risk, lousy payoff,
>
> -matt
>
> The government's goals are to serve it's people.
>
> The corporations goals are to serve it's shareholders.
>
> I suppose at times, these overlap, but that's not always the case.
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Carriers who paid billions to the U.S. (and other) government(s) 
>>(therefore,
>>us, the citizens) for use of licensed spectrum think that they should get
>>what they paid for: use of the spectrum and right to charge for services 
>>and
>>make a profit.  The government did not ask the winning bidders to set up
>>charities or throw their (shareholders) money down the sewer (although 
>>many
>>managed to do that extremely well all on their own).   I can understand 
>>why
>>some in the industry think it is unfair to sell them spectrum in an open
>>bidding process and then afterwards change the rules to give away free
>>spectrum that renders what they paid for at an arguably lower value. 
>>This,
>>some would argue, is tantamount to and abuse of the government's right to
>>'eminent domain' - government taking of their property without fair and 
>>just
>>compensation.  As a consumer we always want as much for our money, and as
>>much of the other guys money as the government allows us to take or gives
>>us.
>>
>>I think there are arguments that make sense on both sides of the 'free and
>>open wireless's debate: if more spectrum and services are to be made free
>>(or nearly so), then maybe the government should have made it clear they
>>were going to change the rules and should now compensate license holders. 
>>in
>>some cases.
>>
>>Or I guess it's OK if the government take your house and let the neighbors
>>move in if they do it in the name of 'free and equal access'.
>>
>>On the other hand, the long term trend in wireless is for more universal
>>standards, more morphing forms of wireless technologies such as cognitive
>>radio and multi-band and wide frequency ICs and radios, more 'seamless
>>roaming' and a general enabling of a more universal, open wireless
>>environment.  The trend is to pry open the hold on spectrum and make it 
>>more
>>available to both competitive forces and public access.  And with that 
>>there
>>absolutely will be ongoing friction.
>>
>>Robert (Bob) Syputa, BSEE, MBA
>>www.WiMAXPro.com
>>[email protected]
>>206-367-6931
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Casey Halverson" <[email protected]>
>>To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:46 PM
>>Subject: RE: Is Low-Cost Wi-Fi Un-American?
>>
>>
>>That's funny..."Un-American".  I wouldn't go that far.
>>
>>There is no such thing as "free" internet.  Access costs money.
>>
>>You can hide it in taxes, create a money pool to pay for services, or
>>donate it, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay the bill.
>>
>>Even non-internet community networks, like SeattleWireless, cost real
>>money to operate.
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: [email protected]
>>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jim Mayor
>>Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 6:26 PM
>>To: [email protected]
>>Subject: Is Low-Cost Wi-Fi Un-American?
>>
>>
>>Is Low-Cost Wi-Fi Un-American?
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>by Timothy Karr, In These Times
>>
>>The telecom industry has a well-funded army who stand ready to
>>paint community Internet as an affront to American innovation and free
>>enterprise.
>>
>>Click here for article.
>>http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2071/
>><http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2071/>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Talk mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>_______________________________________________
>>Talk mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 


_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk