Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
This MoveOn campaign, as all (or just about all) campaigns for common carriage and net neutrality isn't about free, but about unfettered access. Just like you can pull out of your driveway and go to the local store, or even across the country to a store in California, without being restricted and cut off from that means of transportation (via car, bus, bike, feet, etc.). This is, right now, how the internet currently works, so there's plenty of evidence that such a scheme leads to tremendous economic growth. As usual, Jim, you are purposely putting misrepresentative words in our collective mouths. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote: I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dana Spiegel Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:08 PM To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet Dear MoveOn member, Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet. Internet providers like ATT and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents ATT from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays ATT more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality [1]--and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631- h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFewt=4 Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week. MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed email tax. [2] And last year, Canada's version of ATT--Telus--blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating [3]. Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like ATT's CEO, who openly says, The internet can't be free. [4] Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online [4]. The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631- h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFewt=5 Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do. --Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, April 20th, 2006 P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected? * Advocacy groups like MoveOn--Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay protection money for their websites and online features to work correctly. * Nonprofits--A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, MAX Wireless wrote: FREE INTERNET! WOW! Where do I sign up? With my QWEST charges and my ISP charges I'm pushing $40 a month. Doesn't look free to me. Well, when we're done, you could move to Cambridge (Mass.) and get Internet access for no charge. But we're not redy yet. In addition, the cost of living is quite high. But of course this is a New York mailing list, so I can assume you're used to that. In the context of the MoveOn article the word Free was meant to convey Freedom, as in Freedom of Speech, not . Yes yes Freiheit vs. Kostenlos in German. I too am against what Verizon et al are trying to do, but I think the hyperbole coming from some net neutrality people is too extreme. Everyday usage of Google as it exists now will be unfettered. You'd even be able to download videos, etc. Where you would have problems is things like VoIP, and perhaps P2P as well. For these, you'd have to pay more, or pay more to get decent performance. This is annoying, but not really as much of a problem as the precedent is: a slippery slope from 'content provider service enhancements' to punitive classifications for politically or culturally unpopular content (porn, p2p, hate literature). Btw, heard this morning TV stations are looking to lock the channels on your TV from being changed when a commercial comes on. But for a fee they'll allow you to undo the lock. I have very little info on it, just heard it on CBS radio news this morning. What's the world coming to? 1984 twenty two years late? The 1984 analogy is overused and inappropriate. Our culture is not so nearly blatant and forceful in its mind control. Forcing you to watch commercials is a far cry from the abuse suffered in 1984. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] April Meeting: next Wed. April 26th - 3x the fun!!
NYCwireless February Meeting Announcement All are invited - please re-post everywhere! Wednesday, April 26th, 2006 at 7:15pm Bway.net 568 Broadway at Prince St, NE corner Suite 404 New York, NY 10012 (Please note: Everybody will need to sign-in in the lobby.) Agenda: 1. Jamie Paquette/Solar One - discusses the launch of NYC's first solar powered access point in Stuyvesant Cove Park in collaboration with NYCwireless. 2. Kirby Nash/Protexx - Is wireless sniffing legal?! 3. Report from NYC City Council hearing on topic of wireless Internet access in New York City parks earlier in the day. Dana Spiegel/NYCwireless Executive Director will also review his testimony on behalf of NYCw. = Complete meeting details are here: http://nycwireless.net/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=64 === NYCw monthly meetings are held on the last Wednesday of the month. They are free, and open to all, RSVP not required. === NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks. === -- Joe Plotkin NYCwireless Board of Directors email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 212.982.9800 web: http://NYCwireless.net NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] April Meeting: next Wed. April 26th - 3x the fun!!
NYCwireless April Meeting Announcement All are invited - please re-post everywhere! Wednesday, April 26th, 2006 at 7:15pm Bway.net 568 Broadway at Prince St, NE corner Suite 404 New York, NY 10012 (Please note: Everybody will need to sign-in in the lobby.) Agenda: 1. Jamie Paquette/Solar One - discusses the launch of NYC's first solar powered access point in Stuyvesant Cove Park in collaboration with NYCwireless. 2. Kirby Nash/Protexx - Is wireless sniffing legal?! 3. Report from NYC City Council hearing on topic of wireless Internet access in New York City parks earlier in the day. Dana Spiegel/NYCwireless Executive Director will also review his testimony on behalf of NYCw. = Complete meeting details are here: http://nycwireless.net/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=64 === NYCw monthly meetings are held on the last Wednesday of the month. They are free, and open to all, RSVP not required. === NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks. === -- Joe Plotkin NYCwireless Board of Directors email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone: 212.982.9800 web: http://NYCwireless.net NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Antenna Vendor in NYC?
The ham shop in the East Village is Barry Electronics. I've bought ham antennas from them, but I don't know if they'd have anything specifically for 1.2/2.4GHz. See: http://barryradio.com/cgi-bin/store/store.cgi?page=About You could try a pro video place -- such as AMV (http://www.allmobilevideo.com/sales/index.htm), but they're going to be VERY expensive, and they'd probably have to order a part like that anyway. Sadly, you're really better off ordering online, unless you absolutely must have it today... in which case, plan on driving outside the city. What we need in NYC is a Fry's. The stores are huge and carry insane inventory of all sorts of parts (from pc parts, test equipment, ham gear, books, music/videos, washing machines, twice the size of any best buy I've seen). Who knows... we finally got a Trader Joe's. Anything can happen! Jeff On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, David Beery wrote: While not related to 'wifi' exactly, I am looking for a knowledgeable wireless tech / antenna vendor in the metropolitan NYC area. Im looking for high gain, directional antennas for RF video (2.4Ghz and 1.2Ghz). I think Abe's might be able to help you out. I think that's the name of the store. Anyway, there is a Ham Radio store in the East Village who should be able to help you out or atleast point you to someone who can. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Antenna Vendor in NYC?
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What we need in NYC is a Fry's. The stores are huge and carry insane inventory of all sorts of parts (from pc parts, test equipment, ham gear, books, music/videos, washing machines, twice the size of any best buy I've seen). Who knows... we finally got a Trader Joe's. Anything can happen! i second that. first time I was at Fry's in Vegas, I thought this is a geek's heaven... -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
Well said! That's been my point all along. ISPs have every right to manage their own networks. They also have the right to make bad business decisions. Jim On Thu Apr 20 21:41:18 PDT 2006, Kevin M. Agard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The internet generally isn't free. You and I pay for it in the monthly fees we pay our ISPs. This is simply an attempt by these larger ISPs to have the money flow from the taps at BOTH ends of the pipe. Right now I have Verizon and I'm happy with the speed and service but you can bet that if the day comes when I start having trouble reaching a site like Google, which I tend to use at least a few dozen times a day, because Verizon is screwing with the pipe to them trying milk the cash cow, that will be the day I switch to another provider. And I'm sure there will be those providers out there smart enough to find and cater to the market not willing to put up that kind of BS and make a killing on it. Jim Henry wrote: I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dana Spiegel Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:08 PM To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet Dear MoveOn member, Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet. Internet providers like ATT and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents ATT from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays ATT more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality [1]--and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631- h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFewt=4 Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week. MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed email tax. [2] And last year, Canada's version of ATT--Telus--blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating [3]. Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like ATT's CEO, who openly says, The internet can't be free. [4] Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online [4]. The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631- h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFewt=5 Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do. --Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team Thursday, April 20th, 2006 P.S. If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected? * Advocacy groups like MoveOn--Political organizing could be
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
Again, Jim, you are misrepresenting what I said! The free and open Internet is under seige. Free as in unrestricted access, not free as in we shouldn't have to pay for internet service, which all of us already do. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Apr 21, 2006, at 1:02 PM, Jim Henry wrote: Dana, Not so! From the original messagage: The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: On Thu Apr 20 20:00:59 PDT 2006, Dana Spiegel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This MoveOn campaign, as all (or just about all) campaigns for common carriage and net neutrality isn't about free, but about unfettered access. Just like you can pull out of your driveway and go to the local store, or even across the country to a store in California, without being restricted and cut off from that means of transportation (via car, bus, bike, feet, etc.). This is, right now, how the internet currently works, so there's plenty of evidence that such a scheme leads to tremendous economic growth. As usual, Jim, you are purposely putting misrepresentative words in our collective mouths. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:29 PM, Jim Henry wrote: I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dana Spiegel Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 5:08 PM To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet Dear MoveOn member, Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet. Internet providers like ATT and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents ATT from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays ATT more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer. If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality [1]--and you can do your part today. The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here: http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/?id=7355-3566631- h60jchVLX1e9.A7zdEdFewt=4 Then, please forward this to 3 friends. Protecting the free and open Internet is fundamental--it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week. MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed email tax. [2] And last year, Canada's version of ATT--Telus--blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating [3]. Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like ATT's CEO, who openly says, The internet can't be free. [4] Together, we can let Congress know we are paying attention. We can make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online [4]. The essence of the Internet is at risk--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
Max, OK,then I don't see any conflict with some of the proposals coming from ATT and Verizon with this concept of freedom. Consumers will still be able to access any content on the Internet as long as they pay for access. Content providers will still be able to provide content as long as they pay for the pipe. The bigger the pipe they want, the more they pay. If they want their packets tagged for priority routing and QOS, they pay more. Sort of like the postal service or UPS. Now, when you talk about providers actually BLOCKING certain web sites I am totally against that. So when I hear that Google is one of the advocates of this neutrality, YET, are partners in crime with china depriving their citizens of certain content, I just see Net neutrality as mostly a bunch of hypocritical bs, though there are a few well intentioned individuals involved in it. Jim -Original Message- From: MAX Wireless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet FREE INTERNET! WOW! Where do I sign up? With my QWEST charges and my ISP charges I'm pushing $40 a month. Doesn't look free to me. In the context of the MoveOn article the word Free was meant to convey Freedom, as in Freedom of Speech, not . Btw, heard this morning TV stations are looking to lock the channels on your TV from being changed when a commercial comes on. But for a fee they'll allow you to undo the lock. I have very little info on it, just heard it on CBS radio news this morning. What's the world coming to? 1984 twenty two years late? Larry ;-) It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. Benjamin Franklin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:29 PM To: 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release Date: 4/20/2006 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
You're wrong, again, Jim. Content providers (who are only 1 aspect of people who provide information/service on the net) already pay for their pipe. ATT and Verizon's concept of freedom isn't freedom at all. Its double taxation. You would have a content provider pay for their bandwidth in exactly the same way that a consumer does (these relationships between backbone providers and ISPs are similar regardless of the direction of bitflow, and then PAY AGAIN just to get their bits to be carried at some point further downstream, which they've already paid for when they paid their ISP (who pays THEIR backbone provider). This is discrimination of the worst kind. Furthermore, backbone prioritization has the effect of REDUCING the speed of organizations that don't pay up. In addition, this amounts to unfair marketpower, since the backbone provider wouldn't be able to exert such directed market pressures if they weren't leveraging US, their monopolized end users. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Apr 21, 2006, at 7:43 PM, Jim Henry wrote: Max, OK,then I don't see any conflict with some of the proposals coming from ATT and Verizon with this concept of freedom. Consumers will still be able to access any content on the Internet as long as they pay for access. Content providers will still be able to provide content as long as they pay for the pipe. The bigger the pipe they want, the more they pay. If they want their packets tagged for priority routing and QOS, they pay more. Sort of like the postal service or UPS. Now, when you talk about providers actually BLOCKING certain web sites I am totally against that. So when I hear that Google is one of the advocates of this neutrality, YET, are partners in crime with china depriving their citizens of certain content, I just see Net neutrality as mostly a bunch of hypocritical bs, though there are a few well intentioned individuals involved in it. Jim -Original Message- From: MAX Wireless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet FREE INTERNET! WOW! Where do I sign up? With my QWEST charges and my ISP charges I'm pushing $40 a month. Doesn't look free to me. In the context of the MoveOn article the word Free was meant to convey Freedom, as in Freedom of Speech, not . Btw, heard this morning TV stations are looking to lock the channels on your TV from being changed when a commercial comes on. But for a fee they'll allow you to undo the lock. I have very little info on it, just heard it on CBS radio news this morning. What's the world coming to? 1984 twenty two years late? Larry ;-) It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. Benjamin Franklin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:29 PM To: 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet I don't know. If the Internet should be free, then why not food and water? It's certainly more of a necessity! ;-) -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release Date: 4/20/2006 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote: Content providers (who are only 1 aspect of people who provide information/service on the net) already pay for their pipe. ATT and Verizon's concept of freedom isn't freedom at all. Its double taxation. You would have a content provider pay for their bandwidth in exactly the same way that a consumer does (these relationships between backbone providers and ISPs are similar regardless of the direction of bitflow, and then PAY AGAIN just to get their bits to be carried at some point further downstream, which they've already paid for when they paid their ISP (who pays THEIR backbone provider). This discussion just won't die, huh? To my knowledge, what is being suggested is that companies like Vonage (or google) to pay for preferential treatment on Verizon's network, *if they so choose*. If you don't pay for preferential treatment, you'd get best effort service. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is discrimination of the worst kind. Furthermore, backbone prioritization has the effect of REDUCING the speed of organizations that don't pay up. Are you trying to suggest all packets are created equal? They aren't. In addition, this amounts to unfair marketpower, since the backbone provider wouldn't be able to exert such directed market pressures if they weren't leveraging US, their monopolized end users. This reminds me of a discussion few weeks ago - and you are advancing same arguments without doing more research. Mainly, what is best effort and why it is a good thing. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
