Net Neutrality

[Paul McNary]

I have the facts just not for your ego! Ass!


On 1/29/2017 9:04 PM, Fairlight via Filepro-list wrote:
> 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->