:0: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null
Congressmen - please add the following to your procmail filter if you wish to retain my vote and campain contributions. Ruben Safir On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 20:17 -0500, Jim Henry wrote: > Well spoken. I disagree with your goal, but you elucidate it well. I've said > many times that I disagree with Whitacre's stated intentions as what will > surely turn out to be a lousy business strategy. However, I agree with his > (company's) right to operate their network as he sees fit. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:07 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News > -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] > > > Jim, > > I don't know anything about the Center for Individual Freedom. From their > issues page, they seem to attack any government regulation or taxation, > regardless of the purpose of the action. > > For the rest of our readers, I want to state for the record that we, as > supporters of Net Neutrality, do so only as a reactionary measure. I think > you would be hard pressed to find a one of us who supports government > regulation just for the hell of it. Our fight for Net Neutrality comes as a > direct reaction to statements made by Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC, John Thorne, > a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, and William L. > Smith, CTO of BellSouth. > > Coupled with the vast majority of this country only having a choice between > a single cableco and a single telco in order to get internet access, we feel > that the normal marketplace mechanisms that would (possibly) counteract the > telco and cableco drive to control the internet are visibly absent. > > As a result, we, people who generally oppose additional regulation by our > government, believe the creation of Net Neutrality regulation is the only > way to counteract actions taken by the consolidating telco and monopolistic > oligopolies. > > > Dana Spiegel > Executive Director > NYCwireless > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.NYCwireless.net > +1 917 402 0422 > > Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info > > > On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:44 PM, Jim Henry wrote: > > > Frank, > Yepper, and here is yet another article": > Center for Individual Freedom > > > > > Dear Friend: > > Why after so many years of fighting to keep the Internet largely free of > regulation and taxation are some lawmakers and Internet companies now > advocating for increased regulation of the Internet? > > The United States House of Representatives may consider a provision that > will lead to regulation of the Internet. Please contact your Representative > in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner and ask them to keep the Internet > free of regulation. > > Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized letter to your > Representative in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner today! > > http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316 > <http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316&type=CO> &type=CO > > Last week, several news publications -- citing anonymous sources -- reported > that new legislation to regulate the Internet (so-called "net-neutrality") > will be considered as part of a telecom reform bill currently being debated > in Congress. > > Over the past few months, proponents of so-called "net-neutrality" > regulation have been using scare tactics with the general public and our > elected officials - demanding legislation for a problem that doesn't even > exist! Even the Wall Street Journal calls these proponents' tactics "silly" > and dismisses the notion that it is the "end of the Internet as we know it." > > > Some major corporate interests like Google and Yahoo! would like for you to > believe they are David facing Goliath -- claiming that broadband providers > like Comcast, Cox and AT&T will keep you from accessing their products. > > Nothing could be further from the truth! > > Never, in the history of the Internet, has a broadband provider blocked a > customer from accessing their Yahoo! Mail or Google search engine. Yet, > these companies want Congress to enact legislation that will protect them > from this non-existent problem. > > Ironically, these calls for the government to become the Internet's traffic > cop are being led by companies like Google, which only a short time ago made > headlines when it chose to cooperate with the Communist leadership of China. > > > Remember when Google caved to the Chinese government and agreed to block > access to all information and websites that speak about freedom and > democracy? When they agreed to censor all information that discusses > Tiananmen Square and independence for Taiwan - or anything else that can be > interpreted to go against the interests of China's Communist leadership? > > Can you believe it's supposed conservative lawmakers who are now cow-towing > to these interests and offering to legislate and regulate the Internet in > response to these ridiculous demands? > > We have witnessed the success of the Internet and all that it does: brings > families closer, grows economies, creates a new generation of entrepreneurs > and increases access to information for people all over the world. All this > with little, if any interference from the government. > > The Internet must remain free from government regulation and taxation! > > Contact your Representative in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner today! > Ask them to reject calls to regulate the Internet. And, ask them to urge > their colleagues to do the same. > > Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized letter to your > Representative in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner today! > > http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316 > <http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316&type=CO> &type=CO > > > Sincerely, > > Jeff Mazzella > President > Center for Individual Freedom > www.cfif.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Frank Coluccio > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:21 PM > To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: > Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] > > > When a topic like network neutrality begins to appear in > places like the "Talk of > > the Town" column of The New Yorker Magazine, then you know > it's only a matter of > > time before it hits the mainstream of public awareness. And > that's not such a bad > > thing. > > > > Begin article: > > --- > > > > NET LOSSES > > > > By James Surowiecki > > march 13, 2006 > > > > "In the first decades of the twentieth CENTURY, as a national > telephone network > > spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy > of "tiered access" > > for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better > service: their > > customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely > disconnected, and sounded > > crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time > making calls out, and > > people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" > response. Over time, > > customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and > away from the ones that > > were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy > turned it into a > > corporate kingmaker. > > > > "If you've never heard about this bit of business history, > there's a good reason: > > it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a > "common carriage" rule: > > it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not > favor one customer > > over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the > spread of the > > telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the > evolution of the Internet. > > Until recently, companies that provided Internet access > followed a de-facto > > commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," > which meant that all > > Web sites got equal treatment. > > > > "Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the > success of the Net that > > Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described > it as one of the > > basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, > though, companies like > > A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In > the future, Web sites > > that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth > recently called "special > > treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow > lane. One day, > > BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot > faster than > > YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to > run more smoothly. > > Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers." > > > > Continued at: > > > > http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_s > > urowiecki > > > > ------ > > > > Frank A. Coluccio > > DTI Consulting Inc. > > 19 Fulton Street > > South Street Seaport > > New York, NY 10038 > > 212-587-8150 Office > > 347-526-6788 Mobile > > > > > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
