The Gig Is Up!

Are current proposed regulations a multi-faceted strategy
to eliminate competition and control the Internet?

When one steps back and looks at various legislative and regulatory changes, either in the pipeline or have already been passed, certain dilemmas become evident.  It appears the lobbying forces and supporting think tanks are on the verge of a legal Internet takeover in cooperation with the US government.  While many people, associations and companies support or criticize individual bills and regulatory actions, most seem to be ignoring the bigger picture.  Well, the gig is up!  In this post, I will feature multiple regulatory or legislative vehicles.  Individually, these actions may seem harmless and/or for the benefit of consumers, however, when taken multi-laterally in context, it is evident the impacts on consumers and competition are dramatically compounded.  

If we look back in the last 25 years of the Internet evolution, one can see numerous volleys by large corporations and the government to eliminate small ISPs.  Thankfully, these attempts tended to be one shot at a time and the smaller more nimble providers were able to adapt to the changing environment rather quickly.  It now appears a new strategy to eliminate competition has emerged.  Gone is the single shot musket.  It has been replaced by a Gatling gun, firing repeated volleys of regulation and legislation until only the strongest and best financed broadband incumbents remain.

Am I fear-mongering?  Maybe.  Creating a mountain from a mole hill?  Maybe.  I just can’t allow myself to observe the current regulatory environment and what I foresee as a critical junction in the evolution of the Internet, competition and our future free market economy and remain silent.

Below, I will highlight some of the important national policy issues I see at this time.  Are these shots from the Gatling gun related?  Are they just a coincidence? Or a strategic ruse developed deep in a dark conference room of an industry think tank?  Maybe I’m crazy or maybe I’m just observant.  Hopefully, I make suggestions below that strike a chord with influential people who define our nation’s future telecom and spectrum policy.

The issues include NetNeutrality, USF/CAF transitioning, Stalling the update of the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1996, Redefining Definition of Broadband, Unlicensed Spectrum, Spectrum Auctions, and Increasing Competition by Eliminating Public Broadband Laws.

NetNeutrality:

                Selling Point:  Insure content providers enjoy a free unlimited highway to consumers by instituting Title II regulation on ISPs.

                Reality 1:  After years of a government “hands off” approach to the Internet, the United States government is set to become the Internet’s regulatory monarchy.  The free, unregulated Internet marketplace, where innovation has flourished; will begin to disintegrate as we know it. 

        Reality 2:  Regulatory burdens created by Title II regulation are predicted to inhibit future investment.  ILECs, accustomed to this regulatory regime, will fare better than smaller providers which have not been previously burdened by Title II encumbrances.  Competition will decrease.

        Reality 3:  Title II regulation will increase consumer Internet cost once Phase II CAF (Connect America Fund) taxes are added to everyone’s bill. 

        Reality 4:  Legal challenges to NetNeutrality and Title II rules will create a windfall for telecom attorneys. 

        Reality 5:  With the increase litigation risks brought on by NetNeutrality, comprehensive Internet insurance will become mandatory for nearly all companies with a presence on the Internet, ISP or not.  This will increase insurance expenses and force companies to raise prices to survive.

        Reality 6:  As with most over-burdensome government regulations, corporations will seek less restrictive environments to conduct business.  This will cause exporting of many US jobs.

        Reality 7:  Decreased competition will result, slowing innovation, increasing consumer cost and decreasing provider motivation to provide higher grade services to consumers.

        Solution:  Protect consumers by outlawing paid prioritization and blocking websites by ISPs by amending Section 706 to do so.  This should be a first step.  Step 2 should be modernizing the Communication Act. Do not regulate the Internet under Title II.  Title II is a sled hammer solution for a rubber mallet problem.  We cannot afford to be so reckless. 

        Risk Summary:  Over regulation will decrease competition and this slow broadband deployment and service improvement.  Consumer demand for an open Internet will be inhibited by lack of competition and slow adoption of network improvements due to burdensome and costly regulations and thus will compound litigation risks.

USF/CAF:

                Selling Point:  The dramatic rise of IP (Internet Protocol) and the decline of POTS based infrastructure (phone lines), have caused USF (Universal Service Fee) tax revenues to decline.  It is evident; revenues created by USF taxes should be shifted to broadband Internet users in the form of CAF (Connect America Fund) taxes in order for the program to survive.  The National Broadband Plan outlined a three step plan to accomplish this transition.  Phase 1, accomplished in 2011, created funding opportunities to expand broadband access to unserved rural Americans.  A Mobility Fund was also established to stimulate mobile broadband service to unserved areas.  Phase II, yet to be accomplished shifts the revenue base to broadband connections.

                Reality 1:  Funds collected from the outgoing USF program provided funding for Phase 1 CAF programs.  To qualify for funding, providers need to be an ILEC or an ETC (Enhanced Telecommunications Corporation).  ILECs therefore have dominated CAF and Mobility Fund disbursements thus far.

                Reality 2:  Antiquated statutory policy created in the Communication Acts of 1934 and 1996 badly needs to be amended or completely rewritten.  Incentives need to be created to reward all telecommunication entrepreneurs investing in advanced broadband infrastructure regardless of the transport medium. 

                Reality 3:  Telephone companies have enjoyed a distinct financial advantage from government subsidies over other forms of ISPs.

                Reality 4:  With the dawn of Internet Protocol, telecommunications is no longer limited to phone companies.  IP networks can and are built by nearly anyone.  Services such as voice, video, teleconferencing and many, many new services created every year are nothing more than applications running on IP networks and should be treated as such.

                Reality 5:  Goals outlined in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 are still valid and just.  The funding mechanism is changing.  

                Solution:   One of the previous goals of Universal Service stated, “Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of telecommunication services to the fund supporting universal service programs”.  This should be amended to read as a goal of the Connect America Fund, “Provide equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers of broadband services (at the current definition of broadband) to fund supporting Connect America Fund programs.  Provider disbursements shall be made in an equitable and non-discriminatory method on a tiered schedule based on Internet speed capability and capacity.”  In other words, create incentives for providers to advance Internet infrastructure reach, speed and capacity.

                Risk Summary:  Discriminatory financial incentives will increase competitive disparity.  IP technology, as previously stated has opened the doors to competition and competition should not be ignored financially by our government.

Stalling the update of the Communications Acts of 1934 and 1996:

                Selling Point:  Updating the Communication Act is not as high of a priority as NetNeutrality.

                Reality 1:  It seems the government would rather create new regulation on top of old rules than exacerbate disruptive forces which impact incumbent status quo relationships and their future.

                Reality 2:  Complex legal policy in outdated Communication Acts, allow plenty of room for legal disputes and maneuvering. 

                Reality 3:  Internet technologies are so dynamic; new government policy is outdated before the sausage is even made.

                Reality 4:  Relying on outdated Communication Act doctrine has slowed down broadband deployment and adoption by limiting subsidies to one segment of the telecom industry. 

                Solution:  As previously stated; amend Section 706 with necessary measures to satisfy current consumer protection needs and then get to work updating the Communication Act.  Leave Title II Internet regulation alone!

                Risk Summary:  Face it, the Communication Act is ancient.  A world class Internet infrastructure regulatory environment cannot be based on laws created 80 years ago.  Not updating the Communication Act would be a discredit to our nation’s future.

Redefining Definition of Broadband:

                Selling Point:  (Chairman Wheeler) “A 25 Mbps connection is fast becoming “table stakes” in 21^st century communications”

                Reality 1:  Raising the broadband speed threshold stimulates innovation by raising the bar.

                Reality 2:  Advanced wireless technologies, cable and fiber can currently reach these goals given proper network deployments.

                Reality 3:  Limited access to current and alternative funding incentives, slow progress in the quest to increase broadband speeds.

                Reality 4:  Lack of tiered speed level incentive programs open to ALL ISPs.  If we want 25 Mbps, 100 Mbps or 1 Gbps networks, we need to create funding incentives to reach these goals. 

                Reality 5:  Infrastructure obstacles such as pole attachment rights, tower approval timelines, right-of-ways access, local zoning issues and limited access to affordable contiguous spectrum; are all factors which aggravate providers’ quest to reach broadband speed goals for their customers.

                Reality 6:  Content demand and technology are outpacing broadband infrastructure delivery potentials.  Broadband improvements are frustrated by build-out limitations, financing opportunities and regulatory uncertainty.

                Reality 7: Rural demographics differ dramatically from urban demographics.  These differences change return on investment time frames immensely.  Rural areas have primarily been served by entrepreneurial WISPs, due to the low cost of entrance and associated technology.  These WISPs are now incorporating fiber technologies into their hybrid networks at an increasing rate. 

                Solution:  Create carrier neutral construction and infrastructure improvement incentives which will enhance competition, embrace entrepreneurship, speed up network improvements, lower deployment costs and ease investment risk.  Also, maintain a light regulatory touch to encourage investment in the ISP industry.

        Risk Summary:  We need to move from the historic elitist subsidy handout program to one based on performance incentives.  Money talks when incentives to receive it are specified up front.  Past broken promises should not be rewarded any longer.

Unlicensed Spectrum:

                Selling Point:  Once considered useless and interference prone, these slivers of unlicensed spectrum primarily were used for in-building Wifi and WISP entrepreneurs. Recently cable and cellular companies have embraced these limited unlicensed spectrum assets for data offloading. 

                Reality 1:  Unlicensed spectrum is the most efficiently used spectrum available when it comes to number of devices per MHz.

                Reality 2:  Unlicensed spectrum spawned great innovations due to its free availability to innovators and entrepreneurs.

                Reality 3:  Advanced wireless technologies proven to deal with interference and spectrum reuse in unlicensed spectrum have discredited licensed spectrum holders erroneous myths.

                Reality 4:  While unlicensed spectrum does not contribute auction revenue to the nation’s treasury, it contributes to the nation’s economy and daily lifestyle in many other ways that are too intangible to calculate.

                Reality 5:  A large portion of rural America is served by the WISP industry using unlicensed spectrum and has been beginning in the mid-1990s.

                Reality 6:  School systems, electric cooperatives, oil/gas companies and many other industries have lowered telecommunication expenses by using unlicensed wireless backhaul between facilities.

        Solution: Legislation is needed to reserve 10% of all spectrum allocated for auction to unlicensed use.  As a nation, we should leverage our limited spectrum resources efficiently and not put all of our eggs in one basket.

        Risk Summary:  It is often said that the people own our nation’s spectrum resources, which are managed by the government.  Therefore, a portion of the spectrum should remain a public resource. It should not entirely be auctioned to the few companies that can afford to purchase lease rights to the limited resource.  Doing so will stifle innovation and competition.

Spectrum Auctions:

                Selling Point:  Spectrum auctions creating licensed spectrum opportunities produce windfall revenue for the nation’s treasury.  Case in Point: Recent AWS-3 auction has reached nearly 45 billion in revenue.

                Reality 1:  Cellular Market Areas and Economic Areas are geographic tracts generally too large for many potential bidders to afford.  Case in Point: AWS-3 Auction has only 80 qualified bidders.

                Reality 2:  FCC has historically avoided auctioning smaller geographic areas due to “auction complexity reasons”.

                Reality 3:  By eliminating potential bidders, potential auction revenue may be left on the table.  In other words, if a CMA were divided into census tracts, the sum total of winning bids may be larger than one large CMA with fewer bidders.

                Solution:  After 10% of a spectrum band to be auctioned has been reserved for unlicensed use (previous suggestion), 20% of the remaining spectrum should be laid out in census tracts, 40% in CMAs and 40% in EAs.  This will create entrepreneurial opportunity, competition, increase revenue and will promote efficient use of all spectrum nationwide.

                Alternatively, proposals such as the three tier access approach in the CBRS 3.5 GHz band proceeding, which incorporates Incumbent Access, Priority Access and General Authorized Access should be considered for all new spectrum allotments to be auctioned.

                Risk Summary:  A major duopoly stage has already been set by previous auctions, monopolistic ILEC profit making and evident spectrum warehousing to eliminate competitive threats.  We must be efficient with the little spectrum we have left. The American consumers should not be held hostage to a couple dominate mobile providers.

Increasing Competition by Eliminating Public Broadband Laws:

                Selling Point:  President Obama recently promoted the elimination of state laws prohibiting publicly owned broadband networks. He states his goal is to enhance competition and give communities and consumers more choice.

                Reality 1:  Government owned competition in a free market economy is disruptive.

                Reality 2:  Government owned competition is taxpayer funded.

                Reality 3:  Government owned competition is often too slow to adapt in a dynamic industry such as broadband.

                Solution:  Government owned networks, if created, should be open to wholesale private operators in an equitable fashion at a reasonable cost.

                Risk Summary:  Improved Internet infrastructure should be a goal of every community, but community owned networks should not compete against private enterprise.  Community owned networks should enhance competition between private enterprises who lease the right to ride on community network infrastructure.  Public/Private relationships can be so much more effective, profitable and current from a technology perspective than any community owned network itself.

Well there you have it.  Can you see the devastating effects these issues may have on small businesses, competition, consumer choice, consumer Internet costs, network improvements, etc?  We must embrace the changing IP environment.  We must stimulate competition.  We must use our spectrum resources wisely. We must limit regulation of the Internet.  We must create incentives rather than corporate welfare at the tax-payer expense.  Not doing so is only robbing the American consumer.

You're stuck on hold! Waiting and Waiting and Waiting

President Obama gave a speech today in Cedar Falls, Iowa on Broadband Competition. He talked about giving opportunities to entrepreneurs and small businesses throughout America. He talked about getting rid of unnecessary regulations that hinder broadband deployment and clearing the red tape. I found the following quote quite humorous though.

"What happens when there's no competition? Your stuck on hold, you're watching the loading icon spin, you're waiting and waiting and waiting, and meanwhile you're wondering how come your rates keep getting jacked up, when the service doesn't seem to improve."

Although I may be taking this statement a bit out of context, I couldn't help comparing it to the US Government and its lack of competition. As American taxpayers, we are stuck on hold, waiting and waiting and waiting. Watching our political manifestations tug the rope one way or the other, has been like an eternal pendulum lately. Our taxes keep getting jacked up and our services do not improve.

Meanwhile, our nation continues to fall behind many other nations in broadband deployment and speed. The federal government's ability to govern has been stalemated by political parties beholden to the large corporate telecommunication lobbyists, who have effectively prevented competition from blooming. Much of this dilemma can be blamed on the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which enabled a handful of corporations to dominate the airwaves and wireline infrastructure. If President Obama really wants to stimulate competition, a total rewrite of the Telecommunication Act is in order.

On one hand, Mr. President, you are correct to observe how over-regulation and legislative barriers have subdued competition and slowed improvements in broadband deployments, pricing and speed. On the other hand, you conveniently miss a factual point. Lack of competition has been caused by the lack of federal support provided to entrepreneurial and small business broadband providers in the private sector for the last decade.

WAIT A MINUTE, HOLD THE BOAT, didn't you just say and I quote, "I’m on the side of competition, and I’m on the side of small business owners". Now you are ready to give up on the private sector and begin funding government owned and operated municipal networks? You want to create competition for existing privately owned ISPs (large and small) by funding municipal broadband projects with taxpayer revenues? Why not try some of the ideas below.

There are many ways improved broadband infrastructure can be accomplished much more efficiently. We need to provide better tools which private industry can leverage quickly to improve and deploy broadband networks. These tools consist of (1) including broadband providers in pole attachment right legislation, (2) mandating 10-20% of all spectrum auctioned to be designated as unlicensed spectrum, (3) auctioning spectrum by census tracts, (4) removing voice component funding criteria from federal funding programs, (5) creating incentives to speed broadband deployment, foster competition and meet speed criteria and deployment time frames, (6) providing carrier neutral fiber access locations across the country and finally (7) creating tax incentives for capital expenditures spent on privately funded broadband networks.

1. Legislation is badly needed allowing broadband providers easier pole attachment rights and access to public easements and conduits. Historically, access to these facilities has been granted primarily to telephone, cable, and utility companies. Voice and video services are quickly becoming standard apps on broadband networks; therefore all broadband providers should have access to these facilities.
2. The majority of spectrum is auctioned to the highest bidder. While these one-time revenues are substantial, I feel it is philosophically unwise to forfeit control of one of our nation's precious resources to a few corporate giants. Haven't we already learned this lesson? While some unlicensed spectrum has been allocated, it has not been nearly enough to keep up with demand. Dramatic advances in technologies have increased wireless broadband speeds and capacities in the last few years. We are quickly approaching a time when wireless technologies rival fiber like speeds at a much lower cost of deployment. Much of this rapid advancement of wireless technology can be attributed to unlicensed spectrum, which became a low cost testing ground for wireless manufacturers and operators. It is my opinion that 10-20% of all spectrum approved for auction should be reserved as unlicensed and in the public domain. This will foster competition and innovation.
3. Spectrum is normally auctioned in relatively large geographic areas. Because of the size of these areas, smaller broadband providers are prevented from participating in auctions because they cannot financially compete with corporate giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Dish Networks. Proposed FCC rules in the 3.5 GHz spectrum will be a good start if adopted, as the spectrum is slated to be auctioned by census tract. These proposed rules at least, give smaller operators a chance to acquire licensed spectrum.
4. Many federal funding programs have required operators to offer voice services to qualify to be considered. As I said above, voice service is now an application of broadband and this requirement severely limits to potential awardees of these funding programs to telephone companies. Antiquated rules like this unfairly limit competition and thus slow broadband deployment progress.
5. Experimental funding programs should be considered. Funding programs should create incentives for broadband providers to deploy in unserved or underserved areas quickly. One such idea which has gained little traction at the FCC is that of providing vouchers to consumers. These vouchers could be used to buy broadband service from the provider of choice. In the case where no providers exist (unserved areas), it would create a race to deploy to these areas in order to receive the voucher payments. According to President Obama, 98% of America is served. Therefore, a similar program could be created to increase broadband speeds. Additionally a low interest loan program should be set up to fund small broadband providers. Historically, loans for broadband networks have been difficult to acquire through typical funding mechanisms provided by private industry.
6. There is a need for carrier neutral fiber access huts across the entire United States. Too often, access to fiber access facilities is very difficult or cost prohibitive to obtain. If the government wants to facilitate better broadband in the United States, it would be a wise investment to build, operate and maintain facilities such as these. Security concerns would need to be taken into consideration.
7. Tax abatements and incentives are other tools to promote capital expenditures on broadband infrastructure. Broadband technologies are extremely dynamic. In order to keep up with the latest technologies and consumer demand, providers often replace equipment every few years at great expense. It would be prudent to reward continual capital reinvestment.

I am particularly dismayed that President Obama stated, "I'm directing the federal agencies to get rid of unnecessary regulations that slow the expansion of broadband or limit competition". Really Mr. President, how can you say that, when you are planning to impose Title II regulation on the broadband industry. Excessive regulatory burdens such as Title II will decrease investment in broadband infrastructure. Are you saying that federal regulation is ok, but state regulation is not? A bit hypocritical don't you think?

Finally, you stated in closing your speech today, "We are going to clear away red tape, we're going to foster competition, we're going to help communities connect and help communities succeed in our digital economy." I say "Let's clear away the red tape, let's foster fair competition, let's help private industry connect our communities so we can ALL succeed in our digital economy, the American way!"

Meanwhile, we the American people are still waiting and waiting and waiting.​

Our Empty Nest

Our Empty Nest

​​Today, our youngest daughter Emily spread her wings and left our home.  She begins her journey to Chicago and an exciting new career.  I have spent the day reflecting on each of our girls and it prompted me to write the following poem.

I would like to give credit to a Donna O'Briant, whose poem "The Empty Nest" became the foundation for my personal adaptation of her original words.

Our Empty Nest

Atop a high branch, in a proud old tree,

Lay a nest of babies, no one could see.

Beside the nest stood Mother, with her loving heart,

And Father looking on, proudly guarding the start.

The babies grew quickly, lives filled with delight,

While a great world laid, just beyond their sight.

They attempted to try, their wings unfold,

And enter ​life's journey, ever so bold.

Their parents reluctant, and all so knowing,

How quickly their babies, had ​finished growing.

But knew their little ones, were called to a freedom,

With love and support, let their pretty​ girls​ leave them.

The first little Haley, so eager her wings,
Dreams of a new world, readily shed her strings,

She bravely jumped, to the great unknown,

Took flight to the sky, proudly all on her own.

The next little Kelsey, so ready and willing,​

To enter the world, which looked so appealing

She eagerly leapt, to the side of the nest,

Flew to the next branch, and then passed her test.

The last, little Emily, the youngest of three,​

Looked round at her parents, then forward to see,

A new world awaited, oh what would it teach.​

By extending her wings, twas all within reach,

The warm wind lifted, her wings at last,

She flew through the air, to a world so vast,

Leaving behind, the home she had known,

She took off to the world, to go it alone.

The parents looked on, as all of the three,

Earned respect, happiness and a loving family.

They were proud of their girls, and the  choices they made,

Their love for their babies, will never fade.

​
Their empty nest, will always be there,

Welcome to homecoming visits, to a love filled lair,

From the empty nest,​ shines a guiding light,​

To a home of family, and cozy good night. ​

Mom and Dad, now become grandparents,

They are eager to welcome, a flock of ​descendants,

For this is just part of a great migration,

And return trips will rouse, rich celebration.

Spit in One Hand and Wish in the Other

Spit in One Hand and Wish in the Other

The sermon at church last Sunday inspired this post.  During the sermon, the minister quoted an old cliche, which I had never heard before.  "Spit in one hand, wish in the other and see which one has the most in it".  As these words sunk in, I realized this one simple cliche epitomizes an entrepreneur. These words undoubtedly were the basic ideology of our founding fathers as they built our great nation. They did not "wish" to live in a great nation, they created it on bit at a time.  For these pioneers knew "wishing" was wasted energy.  

Everyone wishes to have a better life for themselves, their families and their communities.  The one's who reap the bounties of their aspirations, are those who put their back, minds and efforts into achieving their goal.  

In today's modern world, it seems the media exploits the successful, the wealthy, the famous.  Why?  Audience!  These people have become idolized figureheads for the majority of society.  These people do not attempt to fill their left hand with wishes, they have filled their right hand with accomplishments.  A feat the rest of society only dreams of.  

As one contemplates the condition of our American economy, a look back in history readily reveals hints of our recent "fall from the top".  We used to be a nation of "doers".  Nearly everyone learned the talents necessary to improve their family and community lives. They were not afraid to work hard to "git r dun".  It seems in the past quarter century,  much of the population has become "couch potatoes".  They expect fame and fortune to come to them, just as the media promises.  A large portion of the American population have become dependent on entitlements.  Our nation has become a nation of "left-handers" or "southpaws" as it may be. (Only because I referenced filling the left hand with wishes previously).  

Unfortunately, our government has contributed to our country's economic demise. Instead of enabling the people to be self sufficient, it seems we are constantly told why we can't do things for ourselves.  The people's ability to create, to build and to accomplish are often hampered by over-regulation,  To reverse this trend, we need enabling policy instead of entitlement policy.  In short, we need to put the nation back to work by offering incentives rewarding creativity and hard work.  It is time to create opportunity within our borders by leveraging our expansive assets at home.  We cannot continue to export our precious opportunities when the world has become so flat.  We need to develop and exploit our opportunities at home first.  Then we can export the products and services created at home.

Ahh, but some will say it is too expensive to build products in the United States, other countries can do it cheaper.  Why is that?  It is more expensive because of the massive over-regulation on American businesses.  I refrain from pointing my finger at any one influencing industry, for self-interested industry lobbying efforts have contributed to much of our over-zealous government regulation.

It is time every American citizen realizes that they have a choice.  A choice to improve our nation by pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and contributing.  A choice to put your education to work.  A choice to voice your opinions to the representatives and senators elected to represent you.  A choice to make your dreams come true instead of wishing it true.

I have been blessed working in an industry of hard-working entrepreneurs the last 17 years.  These people believed in working hard to improve their communities, using whatever tools and resources they could find.  Because of their hard work, millions of Americans now enjoy the benefits of broadband.  This is one example of how a program was developed by our government which enabled innovation.  We need more self-enabling programs such as unlicensed and/or affordable spectrum for small businesses.

Spit in your hands, wipe them on your jeans and get to work.  Our nation needs you, each and everyone of you!  Your wishes will only come true, if you work to make them come true.  

Good Bye WISPA, Hello Future

Good Bye WISPA, Hello Future

As 2014 comes to a close, I realize my 11 years of involvement in the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, also known as WISPA, is rapidly coming to an end.  As I have prepared to move on to new career opportunities the last couple months, I have experienced about every emotional a person can go through.  But at 52 years old, I am prepared to leap into a new world of opportunities. I will not depend on my past accomplishments or reputation. Whatever journey I choose, I will attempt to positively change the environment for those who I join in the journey or with whom my path should cross.  

It has been an extremely busy year and I recently realized I hadn't posted to my blog since my first post in May.  I just took time to read "Goodbye Old Barn". I had no idea I would be saying "Goodbye WISPA" just seven months later.  I challenge my successors to take care of this great organization.  I do not want to witness similar results as I have seen with my previous creations. (refer to Goodbye Old Barn).

My final legacy for WISPA, its members and administrative team has be my diligent push to streamline our administrative database, billing and website tools into one platform.  A platform that will allow member individuals and visitors to more easily manage their WISPA experience.  A platform which will promote the industry and our member businesses with new website functionality and a new look.  A platform which our members and new visitors can register for WISPA conferences, meetings and membership in the same location.  A platform where individuals and companies can manage their demographics, employee records, and registrations with one login.  A platform which combines three previous databases into one, so all membership records are consistent across the board and minimizes administrative functions. Most of all, a platform which will strengthen the WISP industry community.  While I'll be gone before the final product is released, I challenge the team working on it, to pick up the ball where I leave off and finish it well.

It's unbelievable I have met, worked, debated and played with so many great people in the last 11 years.  I am truly a lucky man to have had this experience.  There isn't enough virtual paper to thank everyone who has helped me along this journey. While I have met thousands of visionaries, entrepreneurs and hard-working people, I would be dismiss if I didn't mention a few of my closest friends and those who showed the utmost respect and confidence in my abilities to lead WISPA the past 6 years.  I can only hope the future holds the same opportunities.

Thank you John Scrivner!  John was the strong base WISPA's foundation needed back in 2004.  He was the strong-willed leader with dreams he was determined to carry out.  These dreams were not selfish dreams, but altruistic visions for a united industry. The industry was built by independent thinking entrepreneurs cooperating together building a strong, unified and common-sense voice with the intent of lobbying a corrupt telecommunication industry, the regulators and politicians in Washington DC.  John was the first President of WISPA, a honorable man and a great friend.

Thank you Matt Larsen!  Matt was the rebel, thought provoker and voice which shook the industry and challenged the members to revolt against the status quo in the telecommunication industry.  Matt was a founding member, first Vice-President, second President and was involved at the Board level for at least 9 years.  He earned the title of "Wireless Cowboy" through his talented writing and speaking skills and his enviable ability to challenge the large phone companies.  He is also one of my closest friends and allies during this journey.

Thank you Jack Unger!  The father of the WISP industry.  Jack's knowledge of RF, FCC doctrine, dynamically changing RF/IP technology have been unmatched.  His desire to teach and his writing talents have educated those thirsty to learn how to provide wireless broadband worldwide.  Jack's a past WISPA Board 
secretary, FCC Committee Chairman and currently works passionately writing. editing and polishing WISPA FCC filings.  Jack is the soft spoken, level headed thinker who challenges deep thought on topics which affect the industry. His services have been invaluable and under appreciated.

Thank you Elizabeth Bowles!  The fourth WISPA President, who served 3 terms.  Her confidence in my abilities to take the lead as Executive Director and to act as my sounding board for advise was undeniably valuable.  During her tenure,  we created two annual conferences which continue to grow; we increased membership 3x's; and we raised revenues 6x's.  Elizabeth continues to serve the industry as Legislative Committee Chairperson.  She has testified at Congress with dignity and continues to strengthen WISPA's credibility and impact in Washington DC.

Thank you Mac Dearman, Butch Evans, Steve Coran, Lee Loker, Travis Johnson, Gino Villarini, Charles Wu, Chuck McCown, Jeff Kohler, JC Utter, Jeff Broadwick, Brian Webster, Jim Patient and many others who have been my friends and confidants along the way.  Your efforts to promote and improve the wisp industry have been so important. 

And thank you mostly to the thousands of members for whom I have served, it has been a pleasure.  Your support has been instrumental in WISPA's success.  You the members, own WISPA.  You have respectfully supported our efforts with your hard-earned dollars.  You have developed a knowledge sharing community, which has taken on the challenge of expanding broadband access across all areas of the country.  It is your duty to carry on this legacy and support the current and future Board of Directors.

Mostly, thank you to my very patient and beautiful wife Sandi and my three beautiful daughters who have grown up this last decade.  The sacrifices they made so I might pursue my WISPA mission is appreciated so much.  I love you all.

I hope my next journey enables me to continue to bring future opportunities to this great community. I will never forget this last decade of awesome experiences.  I wish for success for your businesses and lives.  Happy Holidays and have a great year in 2015!

Where there is a WISP, there is a Way!  Carry on.

Is Washington Abandoning Small Businesses and Consumers in Rural America?

Is Washington Abandoning Small Businesses 

and Consumers in Rural America?

I generally am not political if I can avoid it. I believe each party has solid points of contention and the best laws are created through negotiation of the issues between parties. Without debate and negotiation, the result is improperly vetted laws and regulations. We haven’t seen a lot of political cooperation in the last six years. It is no secret, large corporations continue to sway legislation (from both parties) with their bulging pocketbooks for the sole reason of making their pocketbooks bulge even more. Legislation is crafted with the help of corporate lobbyists to eliminate or minimize competition. Once competition is eliminated, there is little incentive to provide top quality products and services and prices rise. This historical phenomenon has been increasing every year. We are no longer a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address. We have morphed into a “Government oblivious to the people, managed by the corporations, for the corporate profits”, a country where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, while the middle class pays the way for both extremes.

As I evaluate the 2012 Election Results, it is apparent the Democratic Party carried a majority of metropolitan areas of our nation. Republicans carried the majority of rural states. President Obama carried 26 states or 51.1% of the popular vote. The total was President Obama - 65,915,796 to 60,933,500 for Romney, a difference of just under 5 million votes. President Obama narrowly won in Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. I point this out because each of these states has large areas of rural populations. Why should I care, you say. The answer is Broadband. Most of these rural states are served predominately by fixed wireless Internet providers, otherwise known as WISPs. It is estimated that over 3 million households and businesses receive their broadband service from the WISP industry.

“Small business and entrepreneurs”; a favorite theme of political propaganda, such as this statement made by President Obama in his 2014 State of the Union address: “Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other.” Or this one from President Bush’s 2005 State of the Union address:“To make our economy stronger and more competitive, America must reward, not punish, the efforts and dreams of entrepreneurs. Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities. So we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job creators from junk lawsuits.” These statements are nothing more than feel good propaganda and it seems, more often than not, are hollow to the core. These statements remind me of the TV commercial years ago, “Where’s the beef?”

WISPs are the epitome of small business and entrepreneurial spirit. These businesses are and were created in unserved and underserved communities to build broadband access out of necessity where no other telco or cable company provides service. The creation of IP networking and unlicensed spectrum has allowed entrepreneurs to construct telecommunication delivery systems which handle voice, data, video and every other Internet application. No longer is telecommunications only a business for the telecommunication giants of the past. Anyone can build broadband networks today and they do. If the political agendas in the previous paragraph were supported, more unlicensed spectrum would be made available not less, more small business loans would be made available not less, government grants and subsidies would be opened up to all broadband providers and not be reserved for the legacy telecommunication giants. I was always taught that competition was a good thing. Were my government and business law teachers lying to me? Look around you, how many small businesses have been forced out of business in your community by corporate giants and overzealous government regulation?

A relatively obscure event is happening this year which may sway political outcomes this fall and again in 2016. In March, the Federal Communications Commission under direction of Chairman Tom Wheeler, appointed by President Obama, voted to change the rules on a tiny bit of unlicensed spectrum. This seemingly minute change, if left as is, will cripple rural broadband connections for many American families and businesses. These American taxpayers will be forced to return to inadequate dial-up, expensive satellite or mobile wireless connections. The effects to rural economies across the country will not go unnoticed. Come election time, voters will surely vote for the party which is not responsible for this nonsense. It won’t take many failed businesses or consumers which lost their broadband internet connections to sway the election results which were so close in 2012. Will it happen in the 2014 Congressional races? I expect this to become a political “hot potato” this fall.

The rule change was found in Proceeding 13-49. The Commission ordered the change under the auspices of “harmonizing the 5 GHz band” and “eliminating interference to Terminal Doppler Weather Radar systems (TDWR). The commissioners voted unanimously to apply stricter Out of Band Emissions (OOBE) controls to the entire 5 GHz band. I hope I can keep this simple for the readers. The 5 GHz band has operated under different sets of rules for many years. Some parts of the band were for low power indoor use, others had higher power and allowed unlimited gain antennas for use outdoors. This higher powered band is called the ISM Band and specifically ranges from 5725 MHz to 5850 MHz. It has been the “workhorse” band for WISPs, electric companies, schools, county governments and many industries to connect facilities and communities together which are miles apart. The rule change which applies the stricter OOBE limits cuts power levels of this band 75%, essentially destroying previous investments and eliminating hundreds of thousands of miles of critical data infrastructure.

The first justification for the rule change was the “harmonize the band”, in other words, apply the same rules to all previous sections of the band. This change was promoted and championed by the mobile wireless providers and cable companies. These companies wish to dominate this band with low power access points to promote Wifi-offloading for mobile devices and cable Wifi. That sounds alright you say? Which is more important, giving metropolitan mobile users fast connections from their tablets and smart phones to access points or allowing the ISM spectrum to carry on with high power and unlimited gain antennas so our Rural Americans can also enjoy the benefits of broadband? Both purposes have validity but one purpose should not eliminate the other.

The second justification used by the Commission was to “eliminate interference to TDWRs”. These 48 TDWR radar stations operate between 5600 and 5650 MHz. They are used by airline pilots to identify wind shears which may affect landing and takeoffs. I don’t discount their necessity for the safety of air travelers everywhere. They absolutely should not be interfered with. However, the Commission erred in thinking the stricter OOBE limits applied to the ISM band would decrease or eliminate interference issues. The ISM band is at least 75 MHz away from the TDWR spectrum and there have been no reported cases of TDWR interference from radios operating in the ISM band.

The 48 TDWR stations each have a 22 mile radius exclusion zone around them to protect against interference. It is against the law to operate a radio on the frequency of a particular TDWR station within that 22 mile radius. The total land mass of these exclusion zones are less than 2% of the total land mass of the United States. However, the rule change applying stricter OOBE limits is nationwide. This means 98% of the country will lose valuable and efficiently used unlicensed spectrum which provides Internet service, connect schools, connect county/city government facilities, and connect remote facilities for many industries including electric, agriculture, food processing, oil and gas and many others with important data connections. If the stricter OOBE limits to the ISM band were beneficial in eliminating interference to TDWR stations, the FCC’s argument might hold water, but the stricter limits will have no impact whatsoever. The Commission did enforce stricter software security features in the new rules. These security changes will prevent radios from operating in the 5600 – 5650 band and will enhance spectrum sensing capabilities to cause broadband radios to change channels or shut off in case of radar detection. Eliminating TDWR interference can only be accomplished with the advanced security features manufacturers will need to build into the radio software.

The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association and several manufacturers have filed Petitions for Reconsideration with the FCC to change this rule back as it pertains to the ISM band. Many companies and consumers have supported the Petitions for Reconsideration. Only one company, Cisco, has opposed the petitions. Cisco stands to profit from the sale of low powered Wifi type hardware used for Wifi-offloading, hence their argument is merely an attempt to boost their corporate revenues and not necessarily in the public’s best interest. The FCC is currently evaluating the public record of comments and opposition statements. Will they make the right decision and grant the petitions?

If the Commission denies the petitions, millions of Americans will lose their broadband Internet connections in the coming years as current equipment becomes obsolete and needs to be replaced with newer low powered equipment. Data links which connect rural communities across the nation, will no longer be feasible in this unlicensed band. The alternatives are more expensive licensed equipment or building more towers. Neither option embraces the nation’s goals of faster and more affordable broadband, on the contrary, this new rule actually decreases broadband availability and will increase prices. An industry of small businesses and entrepreneurs will have been eliminated with a stroke of the regulatory pen. This will result in less competition, lower service levels and higher costs for many Americans. Without WISP industry competition, the old guard of telecommunication giants will return to unopposed control of FCC and Congressional policy direction. These corporations will have little incentive to build infrastructure in Rural America unless the government allocates billions of dollars in subsidies, ultimately funded by the taxpayers. Meanwhile, the lag time between the loss of broadband access from the WISP industry and new subsidized broadband infrastructure build by the telco and cable industries will cause great heartache for Rural America. Businesses and consumers that depend on broadband access to carry on profitable business operations, take college credit courses online, to school work from home, work from home, pay bills and do banking online, shop online, rent movies online and many other social tools people use to communicate with loved ones and friends will “go dark” and the “digital divide” will expand substantially. I can see the phones light up at rural politician offices already.

The rule change in Proceeding 13-49 actually widens the economic, educational and convenience gap between metropolitan and rural communities. The rule change conflicts sound National Policy on so many levels. Was it an honest mistake by the Commission or one of corporate domination over our political system. Our nation’s economy is already depressed and is balancing timidly on worldwide politics and the global market place. This is an important issue where the people and politicians absolutely need to stand up for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Our nation’s leaders need to take a stand for small businesses and entrepreneurs. They promise it at election time, it is time to hold their feet to the fire. The fire is in the kindling stage now and it can be put out quickly. If not, a raging economic fire will destroy Rural American businesses and create hardship on rural consumers. Either way, we need to encourage the Commission to grant the Petitions for Reconsideration of WISPA and others. Your Congressmen and Senators are a good place to start.

Goodbye Old Barn

Goodbye Old Barn

This weekend, I took a drive out to our old farm.  Actually, to tell the truth, I was slipping away to look for Morels and had to pass the farm to get to my favorite hunting spot.  My father and I farmed until 2003, when my WISP business was dominating my time and he had reached retirement age.  We farmed nearly 2000 acres of Corn, Soybeans and Tomatoes.  Our farm had the largest remaining gambrel style barn remaining in the county as well as a new modern pole building and shop that we customized and took great pride in.

The new owner had called last week to tell me they were tearing down the old barn and asked if I wanted anything from it.  I had built a sign from old barn siding and hickory barn beam pegs in the mid 80's that said "HARNISH FARMS", that I said I wanted to retrieve.  So I took this opportunity to stop in and pick up the sign, since I was driving past anyways.  The farm looked strange without the large barn standing there anymore.  It was a sign of the times, it had served the farm well when equipment was small and livestock was essential for survival.  Now, it was too small for large modern equipment and the roof was too expensive to maintain, so it had lapsed into disrepair.  While I was sorry to see it go, I completely understood why it needed to go.  

However, curiosity got the best of me and when I noticed no one was around, I poked my head in the shop building that we took so much pride in.  It was built in 1997 and had a large 48' x 66' insulated shop at one end with floor heat and many other amenities which allowed us to perform equipment maintenance in a comfortable and efficient manner.  We were often told by other farmers that it was the nicest shop in the county and we took great care in keeping it looking nice.  So you can guess my reaction when I opened the shop door and it revealed its current look.  

The shop was filthy, parts and junk laying around everywhere.  The nice cabinets had been removed from the wall over the shop bench, wallpaper had curled, the toilet was rusty and disgusting.  It was obvious that the new owners did not have the same "blood, sweat and tears" pride in this building as my father and I once did.  I'm really glad no one was there, because I'm not sure I could have spoken to anyone at that moment.

So as I drove back into town, I reflected on the farm, the barns, my previous Wisp business and my life.  I could not help but relate this recent spectacle with the WISP business I had sold in 2008.  I have also witnessed similar decline in that business.  Once again, the new owners obviously do not have the same "blood, sweat and tears" pride in it.  It must be all about money these days and how much the current owners can extract from the business while only spending what is necessary for daily operations and maintenance.  

I obviously moved on to help create WISPA in 2004 with 6 other fine gentlemen who were driven like me.  We invested our spare cash, hours and hours of volunteer time and a belief the trade association we were creating, would some day help our industry and the operators who became its members.  It was a true "grassroots" venture which did not come without criticism and challenges.  How could anyone or anything corral independent small business entrepreneurs to create a common voice?  How could we get the politicians and regulators in Washington DC to listen to these renegade broadband visionaries, who were determined to battle the likes of Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and other dominant forces in the telecommunications industry.  How could this "ragtag" group ever overcome these obstacles?

The word "diligence" floats to the top.  A word I have personally tried to apply to every effort I have ever taken on.  It is a word that describes the efforts of WISPA Board Members, volunteers and staff over the last nine years.  It describes the majority of WISP operators, who make up our association.  Their diligent efforts building broadband networks in places few other business's will attempt, are testament to their character.  People that get the maximum value out of every minute of each day make up WISPA.  People who create, invent, modify and always search for better ways are the backbone of WISPA.  How can a trade association made up of such quality people not succeed?

So last weekend, as I reflected upon some of my previous creations such as shop buildings, businesses and volunteer organizations I have been involved in during my lifetime. I came to the conclusion; our creations are rarely cared for like they are by the creator.  Buildings will depreciate, businesses will be decay financially and voluteer associations will often suffer a slow death and evaporate into oblivion.  However, while our creations may disappear, assets of our character that cannot be taken away are our "diligence", our "pride", our "work ethic" and our "values".  I love the WISP industry because these characteristics emanate from the WISPs themselves.  I can hope our country and its leaders will instill these values once again into society.  Values abandoned for greed, power and political dominance.  Values our nation misses, values our nation needs to retrieve quickly.

Our legacy will be our "Diligence".  We must not allow the "Blood, Sweat and Tears" of our nation's founding fathers to disappear.  We must remain diligent on this principle.