Blunt Perspectives

In reading Jeff Pulver’s blog entry “Crash Course in Lobbying 101″ I look at the Internet Communications crowd and believe it’s hurdles to be similar to my experiences in the WISP (Wireless ISP) genre of the community. Similarly, Pulver began his efforts by creating successful businesses and lobbying for Voice over IP (VoIP) and is now looking to move increasingly into all things IP. Just as I had ranted and raved about creating an influential presence in Washington to WISPs, I reaffirm my belief here today – with a commitment to help Pulver and the Internet Communications Community to success!

On the issue of the Internet community’s lack of presence and effort in Washington, I would like to begin by providing some history and insight on my prior experiences.

The WISP community had gained decent traction in DC, but I primarily attribute this to the staff at the FCC during that time (most of which have left), namely Chairman Michael Powell, Director of Policy Development Robert Pepper, and Director of Wireless Policy John Muleta.

We successfully won against an interference claim made by Sirius Satellite, were allocated over 400MHz of “Free” spectrum in the upper-bands (2.4-5.8GHz), assisted in recognition of less regulation for the Internet (both infrastructure and IP), and created an awareness about the significant impact of wireless on a global society. President Bush echoed our efforts in his 2005 speech where every American was to have access to broadband Internet by 2007 – where wireless was the catalyst, especially for rural America. We were also involved in RUS Grants, USF discussions, and other Government assisted financial debates.

These efforts and accomplishments were fine, but did not reach their full potential. Battles are being lost in debates over the HDTV spectrum reallocation, white space, and other battles of spectrum usage. We won an allocation of former DOD (Department of Defense) bands in 3.65GHz but lost the technology battle – the spectrum is useless given today’s technologies and yet remains ignored by vendors in their roadmaps. And there’s more.

Why so bittersweet?

The WISP community had difficulty banding together because of the different “clicks” and groups, despite the same goals and vision attitudes got in the way. There was WISPA in 2001 (incarnation #1), Part-15 in 2002 (to fight WISPA), WCA in 2003 (who had been in telco/wireless for years prior), WISPA #2 in 2004 (after WISPA #1 failed, and Part-15 became corrupt). Other than Andrew Kreig’s WCA and my involvement with PFF (Progress and Freedom Foundation), none were professional enough with feet constantly in the Lobbying Halls to make an impact and send a strong and consistent message, thus receiving limited support and recognition from the administration.

Aside the above, I believe there were some core issues that existed in the failure of the WISP movement in DC. These issues I believe exist within the Internet Community, and what does not exist can easily become fact if not monitored or a path and leadership chosen wisely.

Below is my short list from the history of WISP lobbying that will hopefully help us do some creative thinking/problem solving as we begin this arduous journey…

#1) Cost

WISPs were an under-funded community, lawyers cost $ and so does paying a dedicated assembly of people to lobby and respond to/create proposals. Entrepreneurs are spending their money on their business (yes, lobbying should be part of that, but is not), and techies spend it on new toys – we must either get enough corporate support or successfully convince the techies and small operators.

#2) Fear

Washington feels like it is more powerful than the people, just as some Americans do not vote because they feel insignificant – the general consensus of the community is one of helplessness. Failed attempts in DC quickly lose moral.

#3) Unity

The Internet community is assembly of skilled, thoughtful, and independent thinkers – entrepenurers and passionate people. Attitudes and debates (ending in disagreement) lead to a loss of continuity and therefore, progress.

#4) Morality

The “organic” WISP contingents that were formed and received support eventually grew leaders with significant attitudes while support funds became profit-centers. These attitudes lost support from the constituents, while potential corruption and inter-fighting lost face with the powers that be through corruption.

#5) Stagnancy

The organic leaders did not mature to meet the demand of professionalism required in the “Lobbies” of Washington. Persistence is a virtue, however the leadership and constituents were unwilling or incapable to adapt to “The DC Way”, evolve with the Internet and technology, and read-between the lines when Washington winked. This lead to the battles being rehashed with a laughable presence under the same failed pretenses.

I am done for now, comments and insight are *strongly* encouraged!