Net Neutrality

[Fairlight]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 08:26:10PM -0600, Paul McNary thus spoke:
> Some of the crap is real time summaries of jitter, latency, capacity
> from subscriber to endpoint on Internet.

I'm having an exceptionally hard time believing that much realtime data on
any ongoing basis has been mandated.  Maybe, maybe not.  Seems like undue
burden to me.  I haven't seen any proof of the mandate, so it's strictly
hearsay at this point, as far as I'm concerned.

> published with the 700 or so pages crap that
> we only were made notice of by our lawyers and lobbyists. WISPA has
> a very good set of lawyers and lobbyists
> that inform us the details. One of our DC lawyers probably posted
> 10-20 emails today on the WISPA mailing lists.
> Some were fillings they had done or in the process of doing and
> other comments about members remarks.

You know, you're seriously using the wrong ammunition for the wrong target.
The more someone flaunts their access to expensive lawyers, the less I
trust a thing they say, especially when they either can't or won't back
it up themselves with hard facts and citations.  

I'm happy you're (apparently excessively) pleased with your legal
representation, but I remain unimpressed by your consistent
over-compensation for whatever by the fact you mention them every two
paragraphs or so.  Again, wrong target; I don't impress that easily, and
certainly not over money or access to lawyers.  If you had a vintage
synthesiser collection, it would carry 100,000x more weight with me.

> No Mark, I am not going to educate you. We pay a good price to have
> access to DC. Become a WISP and join and you too
> can glean this education. WISPA membership is cheap for what we get.

You're not the first person I've known who's a member of WISPA.  You're
the first I've known who had to remind everyone of the fact every few
sentences, but you're not the first member I've known.  Get over yourself.

Funnily enough, you were keen enough to spout off with a very vehement
counterpoint in the first place, but you're remarkably short on facts when
called upon to back up your claims.  As far as I'm concerned, the burden
of proof is on you, since you made the very specific claims.  To borrow a
common gamer adage:  "Screenshot, or it didn't happen."

> Maybe someday your business will be out in the middle of no where
> and you need Internet service. Wait for the big guys
> because the little mom and pop WISP's will not be there to serve
> you. Live with satellite! WISP's usually provide service
> where no one else will go.

When my old DSL was acting up and AT&T were being jerks, I tried out
BroadbandBlue/HughesNet.  They couldn't even keep their 2.5mbit up reliably
at 200kbit in the middle of -somewhere-.  No thank you.  Pass.  I got a
full refund on that bad joke.

That was an experiment to see if I could circumvent AT&T and obtain better
service, but I wasn't reliant upon it.

There's this thing they call 'planning'.  I would not move somewhere which
had insufficient resources to run the business.  That'd be like voluntarily
putting a freight terminal and warehouse in the middle of a district whose
only outlets were streets which had signage reading 'Limit 5 Tons'.  They
call it due diligence.

We may as well end this conversation.  Your inability and/or unwillingness
to substantiate your alleged burden is entirely unlikely to sway my views.
I really don't need or care to proselytise to you.  As such, this is going
nowhere fast, so we may as well call it a day.  I've extended you every
chance to back your claims, you've refused, and I'm out of patience.

Cheers,

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.