[nycwireless] FW: BREAKING NEWS: Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality

[Jim Henry]

I thought folks would find this of interest..

> -Original Message-
> From: BroadcastingCable 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 
> 08, 2006 4:43 PM
> To: Henry, James
> Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality
> 
> ===
> Broadcasting & Cable ALERT
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com
> May 8, 2006
> ===
> 
> B R E A K I N G   N E W S
> 
> Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality
> 
> By John M. Higgins
> Broadcasting & Cable
> 5/8/2006 4:07 PM
> 
> In a stark departure from the cable industry's public position, 
> Mediacom
> Communications Corp. CEO Rocco Commisso decried proposed
> "net-neutrality" rules Monday by saying that they keep cable 
> operators
> from deciding how to "rent" their networks to Web-content 
> providers.
> 
> "The government is coming and telling us how we can rent our
> infrastructure," Commisso told around 200 cable executives at the 
> annual
> meeting of the American Cable Association, a lobbying group for 
> small
> cable operators, in Washington, D.C.
> 
> The comments are very close to the controversial position of AT&T 
> Inc.
> chairman Ed Whitacre, who has alarmed Web companies and consumer
> advocates by openly declaring that he wants to charge the likes 
> of
> Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. for access to AT&T's customers. For 
> more, click below (no subscription required) . . . 
> http://email.BroadcastingCable.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eqVa0Mc4Kk0Olt0CoY60Ab
> 
> 
> ==
> CONTACT INFO:
> 
> Editorial:
> John Eggerton (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
> or call 202-659-3852
> 
> Advertising:
> Larry Dunn (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) or call 646-746-6572
> 
> Customer Service:
> PHONE: 800-554-5729
> FAX:   712-733-8019
> E-MAIL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ==
> 
> Your E-mail Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is in our 
> mailing
> list.
> You are receiving this email because you have either requested a
> newsletter or a magazine from Reed Business Information.
> 
> To view our privacy policy, visit
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/privacy.
> 
> SUBSCRIPTIONS:
> 
> To unsubscribe:
> Go to
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/optout.asp?nid=2228&rid=186794611.
> 
> To subscribe to our web site, our magazine or FREE daily e-mail
> newsletter:
> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/newsletters
> 
> Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed 
> Elsevier
> Inc.  All rights reserved.
> 
> 
> 
--
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

[Jim Henry]

Max,
OK,then I don't see any conflict with some of the proposals coming
from AT&T 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

[Jim Henry]

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 AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress 
>>> hard  to gut
>>> Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net 
>>> Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most 
>>> easily for you  based
>>> on which site pays AT&T 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.A7zdEdFew&t=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 AT&T--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 AT&T'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
>>> 

Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet

[Jim Henry]

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 AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress 
>>> hard
>>> to gut
>>> Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net
>>> Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open
>>> most easily for you
>>> based
>>> on which site pays AT&T 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.A7zdEdFew&t=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 AT&T--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 AT&T'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
>>

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Congress is selling out the Internet

[Jim Henry]

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 AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard  
> to gut
> Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net 
> Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open 
> most easily for you  
> based
> on which site pays AT&T 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.A7zdEdFew&t=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 AT&T--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 AT&T'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.A7zdEdFew&t=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 pay  
> dominant
>  Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet  
> service.
>* Google users--Another search engine could pay dominant Internet
>  providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search 
> engine opens
>  faster than Google on your computer.
>* Innovators with the "next big idea"--Startups and entrepreneurs  
> will
>  be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay
>  Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The 
> little guy
>  will be left 

RE: [nycwireless] Help

[Jim Henry]

Carlos,
The best advice I can give you is to suggest you get some 900 mhz
cordless phones.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Carlos J. Herrera
> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:37 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Help
> 
> 
> I am having some problem with my wireless connection, due to 
> the recent acquisition of 2.4Ghz wireless phones, I need to 
> know if there is a way to set them up so they don't interfere 
> on each other. I tried changing the channel each one uses, 
> but it only get a littler better after a while the signal 
> keeps fading. I have a lynksis 802.11g access point and 2 
> Panasonic phones.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> 
> -- 
> CARLOS JAVIER HERRERA
> CEL:310.573.3067
> PHONE:  577.634.3712
> 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.4.1/311 - Release 
> Date: 4/13/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] The Problems with City-Wide Wireless

[Jim Henry]

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3599176

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Article: Trouble on the line (About vonage be blocked/degraded by ISPs)

[Jim Henry]

Considering that the FCC recently fined one U.S. ISP for blocking VOIP
ports, it's hard to believe that another U.S. ISP would try this. I guess
it's possible though I think it's more likely that the problem may just be
due to congestion.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:39 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Article: Trouble on the line (About 
> vonage be blocked/degraded by ISPs)
> 
> 
> Anyone had to drop Vonage because of suspicious quality issues?
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1747343,00.html
> 
> *hursday April 6, 2006
> The Guardian *
> 
> Theodore Peckler lives in Monrovia, California, and is one of the 1.5 
> million people in the US who uses Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
> systems to make cheap phone calls via his cable modem connection. But 
> last year, after five months using the VoIP service from the 
> US provider 
> Vonage without problems, he noticed an abrupt deterioration. 
> "The line 
> was choppy, very choppy and you could not understand any 
> words spoken," 
> he recalls. Puzzled, Peckler ran pingplotter - a program to detect 
> problems such as packet loss and latency (delays in sending over the 
> separate "packets" of internet traffic). It revealed major latency 
> between his cable modem and local internet service provider (ISP).
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release 
> Date: 4/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Article: Telecompetition or Binary Bureaucracy?

[Jim Henry]

Funny,  I thought this topic was banned from the list. Just two days ago I
too tried to post an article about the very same subject and it was rejected
by the moderator.  I am guessing now that it is only certain points of view
are banned and only certain points of view are allowed on this list.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:54 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Article: Telecompetition or Binary Bureaucracy?
> 
> 
> /http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issu
> e_id=2541
> Telecompetition or Binary Bureaucracy?/
> /Do we want more government control of technology, or do we 
> want less? I love the subtitle of this article /because it 
> raises an interesting 
> question about Network Neutrality. The article proposes that all 
> government regulation is bad for innovation. Which probably 
> sounds good 
> in an article but ultimately doesn't address the the issue at 
> the center 
> of the debate. Is a monopoly or government worse for innovation? 
> Regulation specifically designed to encourage competition 
> probably may 
> or may not encourage innovation. Often regulation misses the 
> mark. What 
> about monopolies? What is their historical performance on 
> innovation. If 
> I look at telecom services it appears to me that for the last 
> 25 years 
> regular old pots telephone service provided by the incumbent 
> providers 
> has not change significantly.  So I would say that's a big strike 
> against monopolies in the telecom business being good for 
> innovation.  
> Thoughts?
> 
> - Dustin -
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/302 - Release 
> Date: 4/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] NY Press: NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY

[Jim Henry]

Perhaps the ISP providing the connection should just donate them anyway. 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dana Spiegel
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:38 AM
> To: Jon Baer
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] NY Press: NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY 
> 
> 
> Yeah... there were clearly some points that the reporter failed to  
> understand. ;)
> 
> The $5000 was for an entire building of about 30 units, for example,  
> using mesh gear.
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2006, at 12:43 AM, Jon Baer wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Dana Spiegel wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.nypress.com/19/14/news&columns/feature.cfm
> >>
> >> For around $5,000, a tech-savvy apartment resident can attach a
> >> "router" to a physical Internet connection in the building, and  
> >> plug in two or three access points at electrical points on each  
> >> floor of a typical six-storey building, according to NYCwireless  
> >> Executive Director
> >
> > Does the apartment also come *with* the router for the $5k? ;-)
> >
> > - Jon

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] The Bigger Issues - As 'Truthiness' drivestheconversation

[Jim Henry]

Larry,
Absolutely correct, the best money can buy and in fact, the best health
care. One of the reasons we spend more per capita is the cost of drugs.  We
in the U.S. pay an inordinatley high share of the cost of R and D for new
medicines.  Then, once the new medicine is marketed overseas it is sold for
much less than here.  Even with the lower prices many countries do not honor
the patents and immediately start ripping off the drug in counterfeit form.
You don't see as much R and D in medical research overseas because of the
socialist structure,ie, there's not not as much profit opportunity. The
links you reference below are merely  organizations touting socialized
medicine.  We've already seen how well that works.
Almost every day you can find an example in the newspapers of most every
major city of someone coming to the U.S. for an operation that they just
can't seem to get in their home country.   
Been to the hospital lately?  Notice any physicians that seem to not
be Americans?  I certainly have, seems like about 30% or more of the
physicians seem to be foreigners working here. Know why they come here?  The
education and opportunity in the field of medicine in the U.S. in
unsurpassed. 
I don't wish to discuss this further in this forum where it is off
topic. Feel free to email me direct if you wish.
Respectfully,
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of MAX Wireless
> Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 12:04 AM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] The Bigger Issues - As 
> 'Truthiness' drivestheconversation
> 
> 
> On Behalf Of Jim Henry
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:52 AM
> 
> Ted,
>   I was sort of with you there until near the end.  The U.S. 
> Healthcare system offers the best health care in the world.
> (snip)
>   
> [Larry Cerney]  The best money can buy!  For some other 
> comments on health care see 
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/Health_watch.html 
> and especially 
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/Proposal_NH_Insur.html 
> 
> According to the International Journal of Health Services, 
> "the average ranking for the United States on 16 health 
> indicators in a 1998 comparative study of 13 countries by 
> Starfield was 12th, second from the bottom...
> 
> Respectfully, 
> Larry 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] The Bigger Issues - As 'Truthiness' drives the conversation

[Jim Henry]

Ted,
  I was sort of with you there until near the end.  The U.S. 
Healthcare system offers the best health care in the world.  As to 
economic development, sure we could improve and our broadband 
could improve,but right now and we've got by far the best economic 
system in the world. More and better connectivity would be great, 
but there is no evidence it would translate to a better economy. 
Right now,just about anyone in the country can have high speed 
access by walking into their local library,if they do not want to 
pay for it or cannot afford it.  Why don't they take advantage of 
it? I think for the same reason that if you gave everyone in this 
country a free newspaper every day that many would not read it, or 
might only read the comics,or the sports. A great number of people 
just don't want to learn.
Broadband is available now to most of those (in the U.S.) who want 
it.
Respectfully,
Jim



On Tue Mar 21 06:37:47 PST 2006, tstout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This argument just plain old hurts.  You're so right, and so, so 
> wrong.
> Your staunch ideologies give you away.
> 
> Somewhere in the middle is the answer.  The current 
> monopolists/duopolists,
> who used a combination of U.S. tax payer dollars and investor 
> dollars to
> build their pipes (based greatly on false promises to customers) 
> are not
> going away.  The argument can not be about what we have 'NOW,' 
> and what makes it right or
> wrong.  The discussion has to be about which models (please 
> notice the
> plural) will work going forward - not just for connectivity, but 
> for U.S.
> economic development, local-regional-international competition, 
> and creating
> wealth here at home.
> 
> The current model ignores these issue - at our great risk - and 
> is about as
> broken as our healthcare system.
> 
> So, what are the options?  TEDStout  Earth
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:48 AM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: nycwireless Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19
> 
> Send nycwireless mailing list submissions to
>   nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of nycwireless digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>1. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
>2. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
>3. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
>4. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
>5. RE: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel
>   News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Jim Henry)
>6. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel
>   News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Dana Spiegel)
>7. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>8. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
>9. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel   News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:26:35 -0500
> From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
> Multichannel  News
>   -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> 
>> 
>> The only place where this type of anti-competitive practice 
>> makes any
>> business sense is if you already have a natural monopoly to work 
>> with.
>> 
>> Like the last mile.
>> 
> 
> Actually it makes all the sense in the world for Cable Television 
> and
> VoIP phone providers and anyone else who decides that it is in 
> their
> best interest to discriminate against your traffic in order to 
> mak

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

If Wikipedia is still editiable by anyone, then it's the LAST 
place I would look for a definition.



On Tue Mar 21 05:50:52 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> Common carrier
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Jump to: navigation, search
> A common carrier is an organization that transports a product or 
> service
> using its facilities, or those of other carriers, and offers its
> services to the general public.
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

And I thought you were filtering out my posts! 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Ruben Safir
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 10:11 PM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
> Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 13:10, Jim Henry wrote:
> > Robin,
> >I think what you are missing is the fact that one has no right
> > to insist on their traffic being prioritized when it traverses the 
> > network, which is private property, 
> 
> Thats incorrect twice.
> 
> First, it  a common carrier and secondly, Your private 
> property argument is without any merit.
> 
> Ruben
> 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release 
> Date: 3/17/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Sure would be nice if you guys (Ruben, Darrel,Alex) would set up 
your email clients to designate which is and which is not quoted 
text.  It's getting impossible to discern who wrote what.
Jim



On Mon Mar 20 07:43:45 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

>> 
>> No Alex, nor someone like myself becomes a common carrier when 
>> some
>> purchases service from us. The common part in question for us is 
>> the
>> copper and fiber plant the public has paid for. Not the access 
>> hardware
>> nor the service infrastructure ISP's develop that use that public
>> infrastructure.
> 
> Yes - you become the common carrier for your clients because you 
> are the gateway for them to the internet.   I agree that crealy 
> when
> the government is handing a company a monopoly on the last mile 
> that
> then they have even more responsibility to the public, but 
> everyone
> how offers plain vanilla access has responsibilites as common 
> carriers
> and are regulared as such.
> 
>> There should be nothing stopping you from setting up a small 
>> network
>> between you and several neighbors and sharing your internet 
>> access for
>> redundancy or hosting you own mail servers, but since most 
>> people would
>> rather pay for us to do it, we do. There should be nothing 
>> dictating how
>> traffic over your home network is handled if you peer with a 
>> neighbor,
>> just be cause you both also interconnect to the public 
>> infrastructure.
>> And maybe carry VoIP traffic for one of you neighbors over your 
>> link...
>> 
> 
> Your home network is your own business.  But if your selling it, 
> your now
> a business, just like TW, AOL and Verizon.
> 
>> > When you become a Commmon Carrier, the public has every right 
>> to
>> expect > unobstructive, and regulated business practices.
>> 
>> I think Alex is doing a bit of knee jerking about Network 
>> Neutrality and
>> his network. I think a common carrier who manages infrastructure 
>> paid
>> for the public(subsidized or otherwise), and have a natural 
>> access
>> monopoly resulting from that infrastructure management position 
>> granted
>> by the government, should be subject to network neutrality.
> 
> That is the sickest part of this conversation.  When the dust 
> settles
> I'm willing to bet Alex just agrees with everyone else.
> 
> 
>> As for prioritization of traffic and access, that has normally 
>> been
>> specified in peering arrangements or transit arrangements. 
>> Peering is a completely different subject. but if you're 
>> interested..
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering
>> 
> 
> Different conversation.  We're talking about the artificial 
> obstruction
> of services through software when connectivity and physical 
> access are already achived.
> 
> Ruben
> 
>> 
>> 
>> > > > So, what exactly do network neutrality bills would do? 
>> "Strengthen"
>> what?
>> > > Devil's in details. > > > The Devil is in the Common Carrier 
>> which conducts business in a way to
>> prevent
>> > fair competition...be their name Verizon, Time-Warner or 
>> Pilosoft.
>> > > Ruben
>> > > > > > Given the fact that NYCWireless historically supports
>> > > the more extreme positions, I find it important to emphasize 
>> that
>> not all > > "Neutrality" is a good thing.
>> > > > > Actually, it is.  And, BTW, your opinion on this issue 
>> is not an
>> isolated
>> > example.  You have repeatedly favored giving businesses extra 
>> rights
>> which
>> > limit the use and access to communication systems purchased in 
>> good
>> faith
>> > by indiciduals for their needs.  This has been a common thread 
>> with
>> you from
>> > the GPL, to DRM, and now network access.  You positions are
>> fundementally
>> > in opposition to Free Software, and any other community based
>> initiative.
>> 
>>  Businesses like Pilosoft, Bway.net's, thing.net, panix, etc...  
>> sell
>> services. We have paid for a developed a service infrastructure, 
>> without
>> public funding, and yes the government shouldn't be able to tell 
>> us how
>> to treat traffic. That is up to the arrangements we make with our
>> peering partners, or transit providers. Those arrangements are 
>> driven by
>> a businesses primary objective(making money).  > You also 
>> skipped over the admitence on your part of agreeing that
>> their is a
>> > moral basis for regulating common carriers.  If the details of 
>> fair > implementation of Network Neutralily bothers you, I 
>> strongly suggest
>> that you
>> > give up on your original position, a position which would 
>> clearly
>> shoot your
>> > own business model in the foot, and join the conversation of 
>> those
>> working
>> > to assure fair access to all individuals to "the network" when
>> purchasing
>> > necessary common carrier access which remains the cornstone of 
>> the
>> internet
>> > and our revolutionary digitally dependent society circa 2006.
>> 
>> I agree about the concept of Net Neutrality. Ruben you may not 
>> realize
>> it, but you're comparing

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Robin,
   I think what you are missing is the fact that one has no right 
to insist on their traffic being prioritized when it traverses the 
network, which is private property, of another company. That other 
company is already allowing your traffic through, and not 
mistreating it in any way,but now you want it to give your traffic 
special treatment? That's like me allowing you to take a shortcut 
and walk across my property.  I generously let you do that,though 
I prefer to drive myself.  Then, you insist that I drive you 
also.

Jim


On Mon Mar 20 06:24:42 PST 2006, "'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN'" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Perhapse I am missing something but, I'll ask anyway.
> 
> What is the difference between prioritizing A vs deprioritizing B 
> if A and B are on the same network concurently?  Either way A is 
> now above B.
> 
> IMHO treating VOIP like 'any other data' is exactly the problem. 
> VOIP is not any other data and refuses to be treated as such. 
> Minor latency and packet re-ording matters not to TCP nor 
> single-datagramme UDP (like DNS). Voip is stream of time 
> sensitive UDP datagrammes, it has no viable provisions for 
> retransmit nor graceful loss recovery at this time. If your 
> network never exceeds 10% utilization, this might not be a 
> problem for you. Im fairly sure on my network and most definitely 
> sure that on Alex's network utilization is routinely above 10% 
> during peek hours.
> 
> 
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
>> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:38:14 -0500
>> From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Cc: 'Dana Spiegel' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
>> nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
>> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel 
>> News
>> -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
>> 
>> I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to 
>> prioritize
>> their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets 
>> from other
>> providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the 
>> service. That
>> way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my VOIP 
>> customers and
>> give all competitors "best effort" service just like any other 
>> data
>> traversing the network.
>> Jim
>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM
>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Cc: Dana Spiegel; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry
>>> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was:
>>> Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of
>>> voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve
>>> any of the stake holders?
>>> 
>>> Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very
>>> high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can
>>> see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange
>>> '999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon
>>> to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having
>>> to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local
>>> precinct on its 718.xxx. number...
>>> 
>>> I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given
>>> round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every
>>> minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of
>>> who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted
>>> there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other
>>> companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed
>>> data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all.
>>> 
>>> Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand
>>> neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to
>>> be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an
>>> ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing
>>> field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited
>>> use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending
>>> verizon or cablevision for example.
>>> 
>>> What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote
>>> a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not
>>> threaten network capacity. O

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
   I beg to differ. The bill being considered seems to want the FCC to
direct companies how to run their networks. If that isn't regulation, what
is?
 
Jim

-Original Message-
From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:57 PM
To: Jim Henry
Cc: Ruben Safir; Jim Henry; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News
-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]



Ah!


And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network Neutrality IS
NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of PRESERVING internet
freedom.


This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their astroturf
organizations. Private individuals have not been concerned with attacking
Net Neutrality. However astroturf organizations have been able to
mis-represent Net Neutrality as government regulation. It is not. The ONLY
people who benefit from NOT having Net Neutrality are the telcos and the
cablecos. Private individuals and most business BENEFIT from having Net
Neutrality.



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 16, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Jim Henry wrote:


Ruben,
   I do not work for Time Warner. And honest, the bill introduced
to regulate the Internet was not introduced or sponsored by cable
interests.  Research this bill as a good starting point:
"The Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006," by Sen. Ron Wyden 
(D-OR).

Jim




On Thu Mar 16 06:36:03 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 05:46 -0800, Jim Henry wrote:

Ruben,
  Sorry you hate me.I don't know you well enough to even like or 
dis-like you. ;-)



I know enough about you.  Your trying to hurt my children and 
make them
slaves to Time Warner's agenda on what they are and are not 
allowed to
read.



   As to regulating the Internet, it is the so-called 
"Net-Neutrality" advocates who are pushing to regulate it


That would be Time Warner trying to regulate it.

 and have even introduced a bill in Congress to attempt to tell 
private companies



The internet is not private property and if Time Warner et al 
hopes to
remain a player in providing common carriage, they had best get 
behind
the publics demand for common access or they WILL be replaced as 
cable
access providers.




how they should handle traffic on their own networks!



Its not their network.

But if they care to remain a common carrier to the public 
internet, they
had better shape up or we will replace them with someone who does
provide common carrier accessGoogle, Covad or IBM for example 
might
be interested in replacing Dolan et al.

Ruben





--
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/

[nycwireless] RE: Network Neutrality and QOS

[Jim Henry]

While we build and sell PRIVATE networks with multiple levels of QOS if the
customer wants it, for our own network's residential customers we have just
two levels of QOS. Our Digital Voice packets are prioritized and are only
transported as IP while they are on our own network. At any point they have
to leave our network, rather than traverse "the Internet" they are switched
out to the PSTN.  Everything else is best effort.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 1:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
> nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: re:Network Neutrality and QOS 

> 
> In this simple example the carriers sell QOS without 
> guaranteed latency, 
> jitter or bandwidth. They only have ensure that your traffic will get 
> dropped in the event of congestion only after other non-prioritized 
> traffic get dropped first. This is only one option available. 
> If anyone 
> has any direct exposure to what network providers are 
> proposing share it 
> with the list.
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to 
> prioritize 
> >their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets from 
> >other providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the 
> >service. That way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my 
> >VOIP customers and give all competitors "best effort" 
> service just like 
> >any other data traversing the network. Jim
> >
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to prioritize
their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets from other
providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the service. That
way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my VOIP customers and
give all competitors "best effort" service just like any other data
traversing the network. 
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dana Spiegel; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
> Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> 
> 
> 
> I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of 
> voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve 
> any of the stake holders?
> 
> Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very 
> high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can 
> see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange 
> '999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon 
> to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having 
> to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local 
> precinct on its 718.xxx. number...
> 
> I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given 
> round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every 
> minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of 
> who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted 
> there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other 
> companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed 
> data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all.
> 
> Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand 
> neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to 
> be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an 
> ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing 
> field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited 
> use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending 
> verizon or cablevision for example.
> 
> What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote 
> a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not 
> threaten network capacity. Or worse yet, expressly delaying 
> or mangling the rival voip packets. This subtle sabotage is 
> unlikely to do anyone any good. The average consumer is 
> likely to be driven away from voip, because the issues 
> involved are too complicated to deal with. With less VOIP 
> demand, there will not be the increase in bandwidth demand 
> that might be spured by widespread adoption of voice and 
> subsequently video over IP.
> 
> In short network non-neurtrality (network hostility) is an 
> ill-wind that blows no one any good.
> 
> By publicly considering making non-neutrality Standard 
> Operating Procedure some large polygopolies are tempting 
> legislation that restricts the way in which all ISPs are able 
> to do buisness. Outside restrictions on the way one does 
> buisness never seem to help. If nothing else: Laissez Faire, 
> laissez aller, laissez passer.  By abusing or considering the 
> abuse of a freedom that they have always had large telcos 
> jeopardise that very freedom. Surely this cannot be good for 
> anyone's bottom line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:42:23 -0500 (EST)
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net, Jim Henry 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
> Multichannel News
> > -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> > 
> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote:
> >
> >> And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network 
> >> Neutrality IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of 
> >> PRESERVING internet freedom.
> >>
> >> This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their 
> >> astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been 
> concerned 
> >> with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf 
> organizations have 
> >> been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government 
> regulation.  
> >> It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net 
> Neutrality 
> >> are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most 
> >> business BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality.
> > Who said?
> >
> > As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality th

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

And you SHOULD have the right to manage your network the way you see fit.
The market will decide the wisdom of your decisions.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:42 PM
> To: Dana Spiegel
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
> Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> 
> 
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote:
> 
> > And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network 
> Neutrality 
> > IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of PRESERVING 
> > internet freedom.
> > 
> > This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their 
> > astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been 
> concerned 
> > with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf organizations have 
> > been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government 
> regulation.  
> > It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net 
> Neutrality 
> > are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and 
> most business 
> > BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality.
> Who said?
> 
> As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that 
> would apply to my network. I don't want government to tell me 
> what I can and what I cannot do with my customer's traffic. 
> Yes, most likely, I will not touch any kind of packets, but 
> if I choose to give higher priority on *my* IP network to 
> PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this choice.
> 
> If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only apply 
> to ILECs and cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of 
> seems unfair, doesn't it?  
> Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does seem 
> somewhat silly to 
> hamstring them. 
> 
> The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and 
> mandate ILECs to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to 
> third-parties. But that 
> battle seems to be lost. 
> 
> Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes (sort 
> of) sense is that ILEC would have to choose between providing 
> access to competitors like us, or to be bound by net 
> neutrality provisions. 
> 
> --
> Alex Pilosov| DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
> President   | [EMAIL PROTECTED]877-PILOSOFT x601
> Pilosoft, Inc.  | http://www.pilosoft.com

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Kevin,
 No, I never stated "that under no circumstance a public
 company can become a common carrier? " and no, I don't believe 
that. However I do believe that a private company may operate and 
utilize their assets as they see fit as long as they stay within 
the law. Whitacre's stated intentions fit within current law. 
Otherwise, you would not see legislation NOW being introduced to 
regulate the Internet. Again, I don't think it is a wise strategy, 
but these large telcos are desparately trying different things as 
an attempt to avert disaster. They own vast aging copper 
infrastructure that is becoming obsolete as the world migrates 
from circuit switched to packet switched technology. They need to 
spend vast sums of money in an attempt to build IP based optical 
networks and they need to do it before their revenue stream from 
the copper plant completely dries up, all the while seeking new 
revenue sources and trying to stem the bleeding as their 
traditional voice customers continue to migrate to cable companies 
at an ever increasing rate.
Jim


On Fri Mar 17 00:34:10 PST 2006, Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 08:17:53PM -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
> 
> Hi Jim,
> so you as an individual belived that under no circumstance a 
> public
> company can become a common carrier? The Supreme Court seems do 
> differ.
> Here is a quote from a Chief Justice(you can google for more 
> info):
> "Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right 
> which the
> Constitiution protects, we find that when private property is 
> "affected
> with a public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only."...
> So your contension is that the infrastruture of the internet has 
> no
> interest to the public? or to most businesses in the US? cheers,
> Kev
> - -- |  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   
> |
> | : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
> | `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
> |   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
> | my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> 
> iD8DBQFEGnSBv8UcC1qRZVMRAkgOAKCU4GjoMwLCDtrB2Sh5Rj55ko0QDwCfY0dJ
> Wo5EtOX4YEG6uNM/Dh2cpDM=
> =frfX
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> --
> 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/

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Ruben,
  Utilities such as cable companies don't get free access to 
streets, underground conduits, et. They PAY the community for it.
Again, Time Warner does not want to regulate the Internet. I can't 
speak for them but I believe they just don't want others to 
regulate it either.
Jim



On Thu Mar 16 10:38:10 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:58 -0800, Jim Henry wrote:
>> If you can show that Time Warner is involved in getting this 
>> legislation introduced,I willbe very surprised.
> 
> Time Warner is agaisnt the bill because they want to regulate the
> internet based on their ill-begotten monopoly of our cables in 
> our
> streets.  They want to prevent the public from having open access 
> to the
> the the public's cables in the public's streets because then they 
> can't
> regulate it.
> 
> I have an idea.  Lets have ConEd be allowed to cut back on the 
> power
> supply of the TW building on 59th street, the water company to 
> cut back
> on the water to their offices on 59th street, the gas company cut 
> back
> on the heat and steam to their office tower, and while we're at 
> it, lets
> have the FCC block all the satilite and EM transmittions of all 
> TW
> communications at our back and call.   And THEN we can hand the 
> access cable rights to Google and IBM.
> 
> Ruben
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

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 i

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Ruben,
I've no doubt that SOME of the Internet may be public 
property,though I don't know for sure. The Internet is not a 
single entity, it's made up of thousands of switches, routers, 
muxes, optical segments, etc., that are indeed private property.  
To be honest,you seem so uninformed on this subject I'm surprised 
you attempt to debate it.
If you look into this pending bill, “The Internet 
Non-Discrimination Act of 2006,” by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), you 
will see that if passed it will place the FCC in the business of 
regulating the Internet.  If you can show that Time Warner is 
involved in getting this legislation introduced,I willbe very 
surprised.
Jim



On Thu Mar 16 06:36:03 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 05:46 -0800, Jim Henry wrote:
>> Ruben,
>>   Sorry you hate me.I don't know you well enough to even like or 
>> dis-like you. ;-)
>> 
> 
> I know enough about you.  Your trying to hurt my children and 
> make them
> slaves to Time Warner's agenda on what they are and are not 
> allowed to
> read.
> 
> 
>>As to regulating the Internet, it is the so-called 
>> "Net-Neutrality" advocates who are pushing to regulate it
> 
> That would be Time Warner trying to regulate it.
>>  and have even introduced a bill in Congress to attempt to tell 
>> private companies
> 
> 
> The internet is not private property and if Time Warner et al 
> hopes to
> remain a player in providing common carriage, they had best get 
> behind
> the publics demand for common access or they WILL be replaced as 
> cable
> access providers.
> 
> 
> 
>> how they should handle traffic on their own networks!
>> 
> 
> Its not their network.
> 
> But if they care to remain a common carrier to the public 
> internet, they
> had better shape up or we will replace them with someone who does
> provide common carrier accessGoogle, Covad or IBM for example 
> might
> be interested in replacing Dolan et al.
> 
> Ruben
> 
> --
> 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/

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Ruben,
   I do not work for Time Warner. And honest, the bill introduced
to regulate the Internet was not introduced or sponsored by cable
interests.  Research this bill as a good starting point:
“The Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006,” by Sen. Ron Wyden 
(D-OR).

Jim




On Thu Mar 16 06:36:03 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 05:46 -0800, Jim Henry wrote:
>> Ruben,
>>   Sorry you hate me.I don't know you well enough to even like or 
>> dis-like you. ;-)
>> 
> 
> I know enough about you.  Your trying to hurt my children and 
> make them
> slaves to Time Warner's agenda on what they are and are not 
> allowed to
> read.
> 
> 
>>As to regulating the Internet, it is the so-called 
>> "Net-Neutrality" advocates who are pushing to regulate it
> 
> That would be Time Warner trying to regulate it.
>>  and have even introduced a bill in Congress to attempt to tell 
>> private companies
> 
> 
> The internet is not private property and if Time Warner et al 
> hopes to
> remain a player in providing common carriage, they had best get 
> behind
> the publics demand for common access or they WILL be replaced as 
> cable
> access providers.
> 
> 
> 
>> how they should handle traffic on their own networks!
>> 
> 
> Its not their network.
> 
> But if they care to remain a common carrier to the public 
> internet, they
> had better shape up or we will replace them with someone who does
> provide common carrier accessGoogle, Covad or IBM for example 
> might
> be interested in replacing Dolan et al.
> 
> Ruben
> 
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [Fwd: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts Question BellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

Darrel,
 No I have not been sleepwalking. I have been working hard and 
reaping the rewards.
 Again, if you REALLY feel that Europe, even all nations 
combined, has a stronger economy than the U.S., then you are so 
disconnected from the facts that I don't think I could ever 
convince you otherwise.  Korea does indeed have a strong economy, 
but it too is not equal to ours.
 Perhaps most telling is that you seem to equate the average 
speed of a residential connection to an ISP with the strength of a 
nation's economy. To that all I can say is "Please re-read 
paragraph 2."
 Yes, our economy is changing. It has been changing since the 
beginning of our nation.  Some people get lucky and get to stay in 
their same occupation for their 30-50 years but most don't. They 
either change with the times or fall behind. Twenty to thirty 
years ago I was a skilled tradesman in a good union job.It was 
good. I got triple time on Sunday,2 1/2 time on Saturday night, 1 
1/2 time in the evenings, and good benefits. Then as the economy 
changed more of my work out-sourced, though back then the term was 
"privatized". Every 3 years our contract got worse. I saw the 
writing on the wall and educated myself and changed careers. My 
co-workers from back then either did the same or stayed,but now 
they earn less than half what I do,and complain about the "union". 
If the contracts had stayed the same, their employers would have 
gone out of business because they could not have competed any 
longer, and they would have no jobs at all.

 Nothing sinister in all this, it is just the way Economics 
works.

Jim



On Wed Mar 15 21:54:52 PST 2006, Darrel O'Pry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:11 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
>> << Make the U.S. more competitive?  Look around you! It is other
>> nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. 
>> And as a
>> relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to
>> measure the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of
>> living, inflation, # people employed, home ownership, inflation, 
>> GDP,
>> etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>>
>> 
>> 
>> BTW this is rather insulting.  Have you actually been 
>> sleepwalking
>> through the last 6 years of the high tech economy?
> 
> Lets see, 10Mbps+ connections to the home are common in europe. 
> Korea
> can even bling bling a 25 megabit connection to the home... Jobs, 
> well IBM is moving a big portion of their future software
> development to india(about 55k new jobs for india). Turning their 
> US
> holdings in more 'customer facing' facilities. (America to be the 
> worlds
> mall) I'd say billions in IT dollars are flowing out of the 
> US
> economy. Our imports exceed our exports As a country we are 
> deeply
> in debt, both private and public.
> 
> A large portion of our manufacturing has moved overseas as 
> well... We're left with a service and sales driven economy which 
> is as shaky as
> the stock market when all is said and done...
> 
> It will take a long time to recover, and it doesn't help that
> financially our country (not just the government) has been headed 
> in the
> wrong direction riding a near unregulated free market where % are 
> more
> important than concrete $ and goods
> 
> That's my pessimistic luddite view...
> 
> 
> --
> 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/

RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Jim Henry]

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&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&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:
> 

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

OK. I guess I just have to conclude you're hard of listening. I think we're
done.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Ruben Safir
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - 
> AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:27, Jim Henry wrote:
> > Ruben,
> >Telcos don't pay franchise fees in most cases to the best of my 
> > knowledge and are now doing their best to avoid paying them 
> as cable 
> > companies do, even as the telcos begin to roll out video service.
> > On the other hand, cable companies DO pay them. In 
> addition, yes they 
> > also provide local access channels for the communities they 
> serve. I 
> > don't know how you can interpret that as some sort of monopoly for 
> > either cable or telcos. These channels are USED by the 
> local communities.
> 
> This whole right up a load of jaargon laced claptrap.
> 
> The telcos have exclusive rights to your house through an 
> intermediary franchise granted by NYC whose name is escaping 
> me at the moment.  If not for the Federal Teleco Act to open 
> up competition, even Covad would NEVER had happened.
> 
> As for the Cable TV companies, they actively did a shakedown 
> routine on local communities, holding up CTV access for a 
> decade to shake out money.  I remember this as a PRIMARY 
> witness to the events after attending the hearing and being 
> directly involved in political machinations at the time, 
> especially when they left out Brooklyn and Bronx for decades 
> and held up Rockville Center under a direct threat.
> 
> Don't even attempt to rewrite the history.
> 
> Alex Pilosoft was still learning basic English when these 
> things were going down.
>   
> 
> > They are
> > PROVIDED by the cable companies at no charge and with no 
> restrictions 
> > in ADDITION to the fees paid to the community.
> 
> 
> GOOD.  Or they can rip out the cables and we can get a better 
> carrier in there.
> 
> No Problem Amigo.
> 
> Ruben
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> Date: 3/9/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

It's sad that IT is being outsourced but you have to adapt as times and the
economy change. I used to be in the IT field but I changed to Engineering.
Then, as a lowly "user" I often had to contend with IT types so obsessed
with "security" that they would have completely prevented me and my teams
from doing our jobs, if we hadn't just gone ahead and broken out of their
image so we could function, maintain our networks and help our customers.
Often I would go to consult with IT staff about a particular issue and they
would be playing with Nerfball guns, surfing the web, shopping on eBay,
while my team of field engineers and myself were working 70 hour weeks.
You'd never even see them before 9 am in the morning and you would NEVER
reach one of them at 2 or 3 am! That experience may have been unique to my
job and my company, but it causes me to have less sympathy that all of those
folks are no longer in those positions. 
Just my 2 cents.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Ruben Safir
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - 
> AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:28, Jim Henry wrote:
> > No. Check the stats.  Do you read any business publications?
> > 
> 
> Yeah as a matter of fact I read the Wall Street Journal DAILY 
> including the moronic editorial on this exact topic 2 days ago.
> 
> I'll tell you what else I read, the unemployment of IT 
> professionals in NYC.  Its fairly unpleasant for a lot of 
> people who have been essentially screwed by Telco and the 
> Cable Man (along with others I might add).
> 
> Ruben
> 
> 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > > Of Ruben Safir
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:11 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> > > QuestionBellInvestments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > << Make the U.S. more competitive?  Look around you! It is
> > > other nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete 
> > > with US. And as a relative measure against ourselves, by all 
> > > the parameters used to measure the health of the U.S. economy 
> > > (unemployment pct, cost of living, inflation, # people 
> > > employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP,
> > > etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > BTW this is rather insulting.  Have you actually been
> > > sleepwalking through the last 6 years of the high tech economy?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > > Un/Subscribe:
> > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> > > Date: 3/9/2006
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > 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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> Date: 3/9/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts QuestionBellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

Let me fess up!  I do NOT work for the telcos. However I am an engineering
manager for a cable company, though the views I express are merely my own.
I'm also a free market Libertarian that believes the government is not my
Mommy (nor anyone else's)
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:35 PM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> QuestionBellInvestments
> 
> 
> Arguing with Ruben as about as pointless as arguing with 
> someone whose 
> bills are being paid by telcos. ;)
> 
> Hint hint.
> 
> -alex
> 
> 
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > No. Check the stats.  Do you read any business publications?
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > > Of Ruben Safir
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:11 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> > > QuestionBellInvestments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > << Make the U.S. more competitive?  Look around you! It is
> > > other nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete 
> > > with US. And as a relative measure against ourselves, by all 
> > > the parameters used to measure the health of the U.S. economy 
> > > (unemployment pct, cost of living, inflation, # people 
> > > employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP,
> > > etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > BTW this is rather insulting.  Have you actually been
> > > sleepwalking through the last 6 years of the high tech economy?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > > Un/Subscribe:
> > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> > > Date: 3/9/2006
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --
> > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > Un/Subscribe: 
> > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> Date: 3/9/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts QuestionBellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

No. Check the stats.  Do you read any business publications?

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Ruben Safir
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 10:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> QuestionBellInvestments
> 
> 
> 
> << Make the U.S. more competitive?  Look around you! It is 
> other nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete 
> with US. And as a relative measure against ourselves, by all 
> the parameters used to measure the health of the U.S. economy 
> (unemployment pct, cost of living, inflation, # people 
> employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP,
> etc.) the U.S. economy has never been better or stronger.>>
> 
> 
> BTW this is rather insulting.  Have you actually been 
> sleepwalking through the last 6 years of the high tech economy?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release 
> Date: 3/9/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts QuestionBellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

pay it to? 
> That said, of 
> > course we want to continue to improve! Respectfully,
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > > Of Rob Kelley
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> > > To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> > > Question BellInvestments
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Again, disingenuous.
> > > 
> > > Fiber to the Home, aka the Broadband Scandal, used taxpayer
> > > dollars as its funding.  So the telco's say now they may not 
> > > get enough profits from the subsidy?  The dream of fiber 
> > > wasn't corporate profit.  It was about making the US 
> > > competitive in the new millennium.  It was about consumers 
> > > paying for and getting the infrastructure they needed.  And 
> > > we still haven't gotten all we paid for.
> > > 
> > > What have we paid for?
> > > 
> > > Fast.  Ubiquitous.  Affordable.  Open.
> > > 
> > > Rob
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Here's another good one on the wisdom of the telcos 
> on-going FTTH 
> > > > investments, the ROI cable is getting onthe $90 billion 
> they have 
> > > > already invested,and the possible effects net neutrality could 
> > > > have on them. Thought provoking. Jim
> > > > 
> > > > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > > > > 
> > > > > Read the full article at:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316081.html?display=Bre
> > > aking+News&referral=SUPP
> > > > 
> > > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > > 
> > > > By Ted Hearn 3/14/2006 7:54:00 PMWall Street analysts told a 
> > > > Senate committee Tuesday that the billions of dollars 
> being spent 
> > > > by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to compete 
> with cable 
> > > > might not produce a profit.
> > > > 
> > > > "There is a high degree of skepticism that the substantial 
> > > > investment underway at the [phone companies] to deliver 
> broadband 
> > > > networks to the home will deliver a satisfactory return on the 
> > > > incremental investment," said Luke Szymczak, vice president of 
> > > > JPMorgan Asset Management.
> > > > 
> > > > AT&T and Verizon are installing high-capacity fiber lines to 
> > > > rapidly deliver voice, video and data in a high-stakes 
> battle with 
> > > > cable.
> > > > 
> > > > "The costs of these networks are far beyond what the returns of 
> > > > the new services can provide," said Craig Moffett, VP 
> and senior 
> > > > analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting at Sanford C. 
> > > > Bernstein & Co.
> > > > 
> > > > The two analysts appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee, 
> > > > which is expected to vote on a bill next month that would ease 
> > > > phone-company entry into cable markets and perhaps include 
> > > > network-neutrality safeguards.
> > > > 
> > > > The battle between cable and the phone giants has put sharp 
> > > > pressure on the stocks of both industries.
> > > > 
> > > > Aryeh Bourkoff, managing director at UBS Warburg LLC, expressed 
> > > > concern about the regulatory climate facing cable after the 
> > > > industry invested more than $90 billion on network upgrades to 
> > > > roll out digital TV and high-speed-Internet access.
> > > > 
> > > > He referred to possible network-neutrality and a la carte 
> > > > programming mandates, as well as less burdensome franchising 
> > > > requirements on phone companies, as negatives for cable.
> > > > 
> > > > "As media consumption over the Internet develops at a 
> rapid pace, 
> > > > I believe it is too early to introduce regulation on key issues 
> > > > such as a la carte pricing and packaging and on net 
> neutrality, as 
> > > > the mar

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts Question BellInvestments

[Jim Henry]

Rob,
   You need to re-read the article. That is NOT what it said. It said that
Wall Street 
Analysts were concerned that the telcos would not reap a decent return on
their investment. The telcos are not saying that, they are touting their
investment as the right thing to do to support and maintain their share
prices.
And what is this subsidy? A while back Dustin made the allegation
that Cable companies (not telcos) were given $200 billion dollars to provide
broadband to the U.S. I asked twice for substantiation but he never provided
it, for it just wasn't true. And as you can also read in this article, cable
companies have invested $90 billion dollars in network upgrades. This was
their shareholders money, no one else's. Do you have any idea how much money
cable companies pay to individual communities in franchise fees just for the
opportunity to build expensive network infrastructure and attempt to sell
service to its residents?
As to it not being about profit, I could not disagree more. Who is
it supposedly making such a decision? Certainly no one in control of enough
resources to make a substantial increase in broadband penetration. If so
they'd be gone pretty quickly for fiscal incompetence.
Make the U.S. more competitive?  Look around you! It is other
nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. And as a
relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to measure
the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of living, inflation,
# people employed, home ownership, inflation, GDP, etc.) the U.S. economy
has never been better or stronger.
So what was it you paid for and who did you pay it to? That said, of
course we want to continue to improve!
Respectfully,

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:29 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts 
> Question BellInvestments
> 
> 
> Again, disingenuous.  
> 
> Fiber to the Home, aka the Broadband Scandal, used taxpayer 
> dollars as its funding.  So the telco's say now they may not 
> get enough profits from the subsidy?  The dream of fiber 
> wasn't corporate profit.  It was about making the US 
> competitive in the new millennium.  It was about consumers 
> paying for and getting the infrastructure they needed.  And 
> we still haven't gotten all we paid for.
> 
> What have we paid for? 
> 
> Fast.  Ubiquitous.  Affordable.  Open.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Here's another good one on the wisdom of the telcos on-going FTTH
> > investments, the ROI cable is getting onthe $90 billion they have 
> > already invested,and the possible effects net neutrality could 
> > have on them. Thought provoking.
> > Jim
> > 
> > > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > > 
> > > Read the full article at:
> > >
> >
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316081.html?display=Bre
> aking+News&referral=SUPP
> > 
> > Analysts Question Bell Investments
> > 
> >
> --
> --
> > 
> > By Ted Hearn 3/14/2006 7:54:00 PMWall Street analysts told a
> > Senate committee Tuesday that the billions of dollars being spent 
> > by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to compete with cable 
> > might not produce a profit.
> > 
> > "There is a high degree of skepticism that the substantial
> > investment underway at the [phone companies] to deliver broadband 
> > networks to the home will deliver a satisfactory return on the 
> > incremental investment," said Luke Szymczak, vice president of 
> > JPMorgan Asset Management.
> > 
> > AT&T and Verizon are installing high-capacity fiber lines to
> > rapidly deliver voice, video and data in a high-stakes battle with 
> > cable.
> > 
> > "The costs of these networks are far beyond what the returns of
> > the new services can provide," said Craig Moffett, VP and senior 
> > analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting at Sanford C. 
> > Bernstein & Co.
> > 
> > The two analysts appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee,
> > which is expected to vote on a bill next month that would ease 
> > phone-company entry into cable markets and perhaps include 
> > network-neutrality safeguards.
> > 
> > The battle between cable and the phone giants has put sharp
> > pressure on the stocks of both industries.
> > 
> > Aryeh Bourkoff, managing dir

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: A better idea for Net neutrality

[Jim Henry]

Rob,
   If you can post policy positions from one point of view, why can't you
tolerate me posting a position from another point of view? PFF is a
legitimate organization. Instead you imply it is "disingenuous".  Why?
Check out PFF's web site and they are quite up front about their positions
and their constituency.  Anyone who understands how business works realizes
that the positions they espouse make good sense.
Respectfully,
Jim


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 6:13 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: A better idea for Net neutrality 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'll call it.  "Astroturf!"
> 
> For those who don't know, "Policy Analyst" Randolph May is 
> actually with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a 
> well-known astroturf group (looks like grassroots but really 
> funded by the telcos): 
> [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_and_Freed
> om_Foundation
> ]
> 
> Jim, this is just more of the same disingenuous stuff we've seen
> before.  Are you paid to post this stuff to the board?   Because the
> articles neither align with NYCwireless's mission nor any 
> savvy person's common sense. 
> 
> Rob
> 
> --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Here's a thought provoking article from CNET on the so-called net
> > neutrality proposals.
> > Jim
> > 
> > > 
> > > A better idea for Net neutrality
> > > By Randolph J. May
> > > 
> > > Policy analyst Randolph J. May says the time is right for
> > > advocates to step back from the precipice.
> > > 
> > >
> >
> http://news.com.com/A+better+idea+for+Net+neutrality/2010-1028
_3-6048882.html?tag=sas.email
> > 
> > Read all technology news from this week: 
> > http://www.news.com/thisweeksheadlines/
> > 
> > 
> > Copyright 2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. CNET 
> > Networks, Inc. 235 Second Street
> > San Francisco, CA 94105
> > U.S.A.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> 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/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 3/9/2006


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts Question Bell Investments

[Jim Henry]

Here's another good one on the wisdom of the telcos on-going FTTH 
investments, the ROI cable is getting onthe $90 billion they have 
already invested,and the possible effects net neutrality could 
have on them. Thought provoking.
Jim

> Analysts Question Bell Investments
> 
> Read the full article at: 
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6316081.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP

Analysts Question Bell Investments



By Ted Hearn 3/14/2006 7:54:00 PMWall Street analysts told a 
Senate committee Tuesday that the billions of dollars being spent 
by AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. to compete with cable 
might not produce a profit.

“There is a high degree of skepticism that the substantial 
investment underway at the [phone companies] to deliver broadband 
networks to the home will deliver a satisfactory return on the 
incremental investment,” said Luke Szymczak, vice president of 
JPMorgan Asset Management.

AT&T and Verizon are installing high-capacity fiber lines to 
rapidly deliver voice, video and data in a high-stakes battle with 
cable.

“The costs of these networks are far beyond what the returns of 
the new services can provide,” said Craig Moffett, VP and senior 
analyst of U.S. cable and satellite broadcasting at Sanford C. 
Bernstein & Co.

The two analysts appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee, 
which is expected to vote on a bill next month that would ease 
phone-company entry into cable markets and perhaps include 
network-neutrality safeguards.

The battle between cable and the phone giants has put sharp 
pressure on the stocks of both industries.

Aryeh Bourkoff, managing director at UBS Warburg LLC, expressed 
concern about the regulatory climate facing cable after the 
industry invested more than $90 billion on network upgrades to 
roll out digital TV and high-speed-Internet access.

He referred to possible network-neutrality and a la carte 
programming mandates, as well as less burdensome franchising 
requirements on phone companies, as negatives for cable.

“As media consumption over the Internet develops at a rapid pace, 
I believe it is too early to introduce regulation on key issues 
such as a la carte pricing and packaging and on net neutrality, as 
the market is still in its early stages,” Bourkoff said.

Moffett, an opponent of network-neutrality mandates by government, 
warned that if network owners were barred from creating a “fast 
lane” on the Internet to generate more revenue to cover capital 
expenditures, they would have to recover much, if not all, of 
their cost from subscribers, whose monthly bills would likely rise 
substantially.

“Mandated net neutrality would further sour Wall Street’s taste 
for broadband-infrastructure investments, making it increasingly 
difficult to sustain necessary capital returns, and it would 
likely mean that consumers alone would be required to foot the 
entire bill for whatever network investments do get made,” Moffett 
said.

Investors dislike policy upheavals in Washington that distract 
them from focusing on market fundamentals, said Kevin Moore, 
wireline telecom analyst at Wachovia Securities.

“We have enough to worry about in considering the rapidly changing 
competitive and technological environment. In other words, we want 
regulatory stability and certainty,” Moore said.


> 
> 
> 
> Want to see more? Become a subscriber today and sign up for 
> Multichannel Newswire, our daily email, FREE with your paid 
> subscription:
> http://www.multichannel.com/subscribe
> 
> 
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Fwd: A better idea for Net neutrality

[Jim Henry]

Here's a thought provoking article from CNET on the so-called net 
neutrality proposals.
Jim

> 
> A better idea for Net neutrality
> By Randolph J. May
> 
> Policy analyst Randolph J. May says the time is right for 
> advocates to step back from the precipice.
> 
> http://news.com.com/A+better+idea+for+Net+neutrality/2010-1028_3-6048882.html?tag=sas.email
> 
> Read all technology news from this week:
> http://www.news.com/thisweeksheadlines/
> 
> 
> Copyright 2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
> CNET Networks, Inc.
> 235 Second Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
> U.S.A.
> 
> 
> 
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
Read this article:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html?display=Breaking+New
s
<http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6305438.html?display=Breaking+Ne
ws&referral=SUPP&nid=2228> &referral=SUPP&nid=2228
 
and I think you will begin to see that such fears are unfounded.  
 
Jim

-Original Message-
From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rob Kelley (yahoo)'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?


Jim, 

I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_
extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as
I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of
the larger issue.

In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of
important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers)
helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures
to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to
provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the
monopolistic market position we put them in.

Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part
of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us
over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and
switch on us.



Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote:


This guy (the author, not you Rob) references nuclear power like it's a BAD
thing! Concern for large companies exercising their market power over their
netwokrs isn't going to get much traction when it only comes from people on
the extreme.

Jim


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Rob Kelley (yahoo)
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:50 PM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?


The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality...


>From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester

The End of the Internet?

by JEFF CHESTER

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an
alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and  
nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded  
service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we 

do online.


Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
developing strategies that would track and store 

information on our  

every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing  
system, the scope of which could rival the National Security  
Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the  
cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the  
deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major  
advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these  
providers would have first priority on our computer and television  
screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- 
peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply  
shut out.

Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content
providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online,  
stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling  
new subscription plans that would further limit the online  
experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of  
Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads,  
media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or 

received.


To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable
lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to 

further weaken  

the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal  
government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital  
communications services as private networks, free of policy  
safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the 

Congress and  

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering  
proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's  
future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised  
Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are  
using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or  
clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged  
digital retail machine.

The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable
industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. 

Senior phone  

executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new  
scheme for the de

RE: [nycwireless] Wifi Site Survey Tools, Spectrum Analyzers, etc

[Jim Henry]

Good article. I have a Fluke wireless Etherscope and it's a wonderful thing.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley (yahoo)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:13 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Wifi Site Survey Tools, Spectrum Analyzers, etc
> 
> 
> Network Computing has a series of reviews about WLAN tools for
> administrators.   Some of them are expensive, but the reviews are
> interesting, particularly those on graphical site survey 
> tools.  They also devote a page to open-source tools 
> (netstumbler, kismet):
> 
>  
> 
>
[
]


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?

[Jim Henry]

This guy (the author, not you Rob) references nuclear power like it's a BAD
thing! Concern for large companies exercising their market power over their
netwokrs isn't going to get much traction when it only comes from people on
the extreme.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley (yahoo)
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:50 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
> 
> 
> The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality...
> 
> > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006]
> >
> > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester
> >
> > The End of the Internet?
> >
> > by JEFF CHESTER
> >
> > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an
> > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and  
> > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded  
> > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we 
> do online.
> >
> > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are
> > developing strategies that would track and store 
> information on our  
> > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing  
> > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security  
> > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the  
> > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the  
> > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major  
> > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these  
> > providers would have first priority on our computer and television  
> > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- 
> > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply  
> > shut out.
> >
> > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content
> > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online,  
> > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling  
> > new subscription plans that would further limit the online  
> > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of  
> > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads,  
> > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or 
> received.
> >
> > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable
> > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to 
> further weaken  
> > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal  
> > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital  
> > communications services as private networks, free of policy  
> > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the 
> Congress and  
> > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering  
> > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's  
> > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised  
> > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are  
> > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or  
> > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged  
> > digital retail machine.
> >
> > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable
> > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. 
> Senior phone  
> > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new  
> > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major  
> > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of  
> > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed  
> > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because  
> > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a  
> > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes  
> > [for] free is nuts!"
> >
> > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win
> > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a  
> > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a  
> > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media  
> > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies  
> > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers  
> > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's  
> > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based  
> > capitalist economy."
> >
> > Net Neutrality
> >
> > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information
> > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are  
> > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on  
> > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media  
> > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed  
> > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating  
> > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable  
> > companies would not be allowed to slow d

RE: [nycwireless] a quote from a case by Mr. Chief Justice Waite

[Jim Henry]

Kevin,
   If you cannot cite a specific case and date for this opinion then how are
we to know if he uttered this on the Connecticutt court or while on SCOTUS?

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: James Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:01 PM
> To: 'Kevin Mark'; 'Nyc wireless list'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] a quote from a case by Mr. Chief 
> Justice Waite
> 
> 
> Do you have a cite?
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > Of Kevin Mark
> > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:24 AM
> > To: Nyc wireless list
> > Subject: [nycwireless] a quote from a case by Mr. Chief 
> Justice Waite
> > 
> > 
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > I was reading a book about Supreme Court cases and I came
> > upon this quote from the majority opinion by Mr. Chief 
> Justice Waite:
> > 
> >  "This brings us to inquire as to the principle upon which
> > power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine 
> > what is within and what is without its operative effect. 
> > Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right 
> > which the Constitution protects, we find that when private 
> > property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be 
> > <> only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice 
> > Hale more than two hundred years ago...Property does become 
> > clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make 
> > it of public consequence, and affects the community at large. 
> > When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which 
> > the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the 
> > public an interest in that use, and must submit to be 
> > controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent 
> > of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his 
> > grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains 
> > the use, he must submit to the control  And the same has 
> > been held as to warehouses and warehousemen...
> > - From the same source comes the power to regulate the 
> > charges of common carriers, which was done in England as long 
> > ago as the third year of the reign of Willam and Mary, and 
> > continued until within a comparatively recent period  
> > Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have 
> > duties to perform in which the public interest"
> > 
> > Common carriers seem to have forgotten something.
> > Cheers,
> > Kev
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] a quote from a case by Mr. Chief Justice Waite

[Jim Henry]

Do you have a cite?

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Kevin Mark
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:24 AM
> To: Nyc wireless list
> Subject: [nycwireless] a quote from a case by Mr. Chief Justice Waite
> 
> 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi all,
> I was reading a book about Supreme Court cases and I came 
> upon this quote from the majority opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Waite:
> 
>  "This brings us to inquire as to the principle upon which 
> power of regulation rests, in order that we may determine 
> what is within and what is without its operative effect. 
> Looking, then, to the common law, from whence came the right 
> which the Constitution protects, we find that when private 
> property is "affected with a public interest, it ceases to be 
> <> only." This was said by Lord Chief Justice 
> Hale more than two hundred years ago...Property does become 
> clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make 
> it of public consequence, and affects the community at large. 
> When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which 
> the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the 
> public an interest in that use, and must submit to be 
> controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent 
> of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his 
> grant by discontinuing the use; but, so long as he maintains 
> the use, he must submit to the control  And the same has 
> been held as to warehouses and warehousemen...
> - From the same source comes the power to regulate the 
> charges of common carriers, which was done in England as long 
> ago as the third year of the reign of Willam and Mary, and 
> continued until within a comparatively recent period  
> Common carriers exercise a sort of public office, and have 
> duties to perform in which the public interest"
> 
> Common carriers seem to have forgotten something.
> Cheers,
> Kev

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Internet Freedom Under Fire: Act Now

[Jim Henry]

Shame on those evil big companies for wanting to make a profit!  Shame on
them for wanting to control how the very networks which they built and run,
with their stockholders' money, are run!


Sorry sometimes I just can't resist!

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dana Spiegel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 2:39 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Fwd: Internet Freedom Under Fire: Act Now
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: "Timothy Karr, Campaign Director" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: January 24, 2006 2:33:28 PM EST
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Internet Freedom Under Fire: Act Now
> >
> > Dear Dana Spiegel:
> >
> > After destroying TV and radio, mega-media corporations are scheming
> > to control what content you can view and which services you 
> can use  
> > online.
> >
> > Streaming video, Internet phones, podcasting and online games are
> > the future of the Internet. But companies like Verizon, AT&T and  
> > Comcast want Congress to let them deliver only their own products  
> > at super-high speeds ... while sticking the rest of us in the slow  
> > lane.
> >
> > This predatory scheme would be a dead end for independent voices
> > and Internet innovators: bloggers, producers, and any new channels  
> > and services that might compete with the conglomerates.
> >
> > The only way to stop them is to raise hell right now:
> >
> > Tell Big Media and Congress: Hands Off Our Internet. Go to http://
> > www.freepress.net/action/neutrality
> >
> > From its beginnings, the Internet was built on a cooperative,
> > democratic ideal. The infrastructure's only job was to move data  
> > between users - regardless of where it came from or what it 
> contained.
> >
> > This "network neutrality" fostered a medium that did not exclude
> > anyone, allowed for far-reaching innovations, and created the  
> > Internet as we know it.
> >
> > Past experience shows that when large media companies are left to
> > their own devices, the result is content and services that serve  
> > nothing but their bank accounts. An open and independent Internet  
> > is the antidote to these media gatekeepers.
> >
> > If big media companies are allowed to limit the fastest services to
> > those who can pay their toll, upstart Web services, consumers,  
> > bloggers and new media makers alike all would be cut off from the  
> > digital revolution.
> >
> > Tell Big Media and Congress: Hands Off Our Internet. Go to http://
> > www.freepress.net/action/neutrality
> >

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - Vote Today!

[Jim Henry]

I already read it.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:39 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net 
> Neutrality - Vote Today!
> 
> 
> The telcos have been publicly talking about charging content 
> providers 
> for use of their networks. This translates to higher costs 
> for content 
> to the end user.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/business/yourmoney/15digi.ht
> ml?oref=login
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Well hopefully the RBOCs will take the approach that Comcast 
> has.  They 
> >have implemented QOS on their own CDV (Comcast Digital 
> Voice) product 
> >but will not degrade other VOIP services nor block ports. So 
> if you use 
> >Vonage or whatever,  your voice traffic is handled just like 
> all your 
> >other data. Having QOS on the CDV should ensure better service for 
> >their own product without actively degrading anyone elses.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Dustin Goodwin
> >>Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:27 PM
> >>To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - 
> >>Vote Today!
> >>
> >>
> >>Please share your opinions on your DSL or Cable provider charging
> >>content providers to deliver voip, video and gaming to your 
> broadband 
> >>connection.
> >>http://www.lightreading.com/survey.asp?doc_id=86706
> >>Remember you will still pay for your broadband every month 
> >>but providers 
> >>will just be putting more money in their pockets. No benefit 
> >>to you but 
> >>higher costs from the content providers. It is another 
> >>monopoly tax you 
> >>will be paying. Just like the over priced broadband your 
> >>using right now.
> >>
> >>- Dustin -
> >>--
> >>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >>Un/Subscribe:
> >>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> >>Date: 1/12/2006
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - Vote Today!

[Jim Henry]

Well hopefully the RBOCs will take the approach that Comcast has.  They have
implemented QOS on their own CDV (Comcast Digital Voice) product but will
not degrade other VOIP services nor block ports. So if you use Vonage or
whatever,  your voice traffic is handled just like all your other data.
Having QOS on the CDV should ensure better service for their own product
without actively degrading anyone elses.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:27 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - 
> Vote Today!
> 
> 
> Please share your opinions on your DSL or Cable provider charging 
> content providers to deliver voip, video and gaming to your broadband 
> connection.
> http://www.lightreading.com/survey.asp?doc_id=86706
> Remember you will still pay for your broadband every month 
> but providers 
> will just be putting more money in their pockets. No benefit 
> to you but 
> higher costs from the content providers. It is another 
> monopoly tax you 
> will be paying. Just like the over priced broadband your 
> using right now.
> 
> - Dustin -
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] [Fwd: [CYBERTEL] FW: the fiction zone that DC has become]

[Jim Henry]

Dustin,
   I truly believe that Broadband in the U.S. could be improved. It could be 
faster. It could be available in more areas. However one of the arguments made 
on this list is that improving Broadband in the U.S. will be good for the 
economy.  I agree with that and I think that is the best argument.  However, 
these countries that have "better" Broadband than the U.S. have economies that 
are no match for ours, with few exceptions. They have higher unemployment. They 
have higher inflation. They have higher taxes. That tells me that for the most 
part, we in the U.S. are getting the Broadband we need, where we need it, to 
support, maintain, and grow our economy.  Yes it can be improved and yes it 
should be improved.  Yes it IS being improved. Twenty five years ago I could 
only go online at 300 bps. Then I went to 1200, 2400, 9600, 14,400, 28,800, 
then finally 56kbps. That took about 15-18 years.  Then I was able to get a 
cable modem and get 1.0-1.5 mbps down and 256k up.  That was in 98 or 99. Now, 
my cable company offers me up to 8mbps down and 1mbps up. I'm able to run 3 of 
them at home and aggregate the bandwidth in two of them and the local cable 
plant seems to support it just fine. I also get my video and phone through the 
same coax. I honestly don't know if I need more than that but basically I can 
buy as much as I need and want to pay for. For most of what I need to do 
online, either http, telnet, email, or ftp, I see no faster performance at my 
office where I have gigabit to the desktop and a 100 mbps connection to the 
Internet. I just live in an average part of this country.  Certainly there are 
areas where broadband availability is limited or nil, and I hope it improves, 
but for the most part these areas are where the least people are.  Otherwise 
the broadband would be there because it's in the best interest of providers to 
deliver it there and make a profit. 
You won't hear me touting Verizon in particular or DSL in general, but 
cable seems to do pretty well speed wise. The problem with cable is that the 
growth of broadband is so great in this country that cable companies are 
constantly battling capacity issues and constantly having to do node splits to 
keep up. It takes tons of money to support the infrastructure of a high speed 
provider, be it Telco or cable. The prices listed for broadband in some of 
these other countries are not accurate for they do not include the taxes people 
pay to help fund and subsidize it. If you included that and distributed that 
cost not across the entire population of taxpayers but only to broadband 
consumers, you would find that the cost of broadband is much higher elsewhere, 
with some exceptions.
As to speed, once DOCSIS 3.0 is implemented, 100mbps will be available 
via cable.
Respectfully,

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] [Fwd: [CYBERTEL] FW: the fiction zone 
> that DC has become]
> 
> 
> Oh wait! Even the Wall Street Journal thinks broadband in the 
> US sucks!
> 
> "We are somewhere between 12th and 19th in the world, depending upon 
> whose scale you use. As the Wall Street Journal reported 
>  two months ago, 
> broadband in the US is “slow and expensive.” Verizon’s entry-level 
> broadband is $14.95 for 786 kbs. That about $20 per megabit. 
> In FRANCE, 
> for $36/m, you get 20 megabits/s — or about $1.80 per megabit. "
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject:  [CYBERTEL] FW: the fiction zone that DC has become
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:57:41 -0500
> From: Roland Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: Software Patent Institute
> To:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> 
> To quote Larry Lessig (below):
> 
>  
> 
> Roland J. Cole, J.D., Ph.D.
> 
> Executive Director
> 
> Software Patent Institute
> 
> 5315 Washington Blvd
> 
> INDIANAPOLIS IN 46220-3062
> 
> 317-727-8940; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www.spi.org
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: Lessig Blog [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Posted At: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:32 PM
> Posted To: Lessig Blog
> Conversation: the fiction zone that DC has become
> Subject: the fiction zone that DC has become
>   
> 
> http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003290.shtml
> 
> The Washington Internet Daily (which apparently is not on the 
> Internet) has a story predicting the Telecom Bill will pass 
> the House this year. The only sticking point seems to be the 
> “controversial” “net neutrality” proposal. Says Howard 
> Waltzman, the committee’s majority chief telecom counsel, 
> and “net neutrality” opponent: “We’re going to rely on 
> the market to regulate these services and not have a heavy 
> hand in government reg

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Frank,
   Thank you for the intelligent, real world points you brought up.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Frank Coluccio
> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:20 AM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> On the matter of some networks working and some not, where is 
> the board going
> 
> with this line of discussion? Does anyone here seriously 
> think that either the
> 
> left or the right has a lock against this phenomenon from 
> occurring? Sure, first
> 
> rounds of anything have their fair share of flops. Look at 
> IPTV, as initially
> 
> announced by the RBOCs, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> In order to remain on course, Verizon has had to launch its 
> first video program
> 
> services through the use of cable TV industry's  "analog" RF 
> (radio frequency)
> 
> technologies. What this means is that Verion is now sending 
> video to residences
> 
> over a third optical signal (wavelength) in its fiber to the 
> home network, which
> 
> they call FiOS, instead of using an all-digital, all-IP 
> format as originally
> 
> planned. Why? Because the combination IP TV software from 
> Microsoft and the other
> 
> network elements used in FiOS are not yet working 
> satisfactorily together,
> 
> rendering unfit for prime time, yet. 
> 
> 
> 
> Also consider, AT&T (nee SBC + AT&T) is in worse shape than 
> Verizon. They are
> 
> using FTTNode/Curb, i.e., AT&T is not installing fiber all 
> the way to the home,
> 
> but only part way, and using twisted copper pairs for the 
> remainder of the
> 
> distance to the home. What this means is that AT&T doesn't 
> even have a third
> 
> optical wavelength to use for an analog video fix, like 
> Verizon does, so they're
> 
> sucking wind for the moment, and not delivering "any" video 
> services, at all. 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of these examples, however, is indicative that in a 
> year's time both
> 
> won't be up and flying. They surely will. This is how 
> progress is made, one step
> 
> at a time, no matter what the presumed persuasion might be. 
> 
> 
> 
> Frank 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Dustin,
It would be helpful if you would try to read and comprehend my posts
before responding.  I never said that Freepress is terrible. I said that
they claimed non-partisan status but that most of the articles on their
website seemed to be promoting a leftist agenda.  The definition of good
public policy really depends on your definition of what is good. I am for
what works, year after year, efficiently, and what generates sufficient
revenue to support and maintain itself.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Jim,
> Freepress must be terrible because they are not a mouthpiece 
> for huge telecom corporations. Your right they can't be 
> trusted. Personally I would describe Freepress as politically 
> progressive. I am not sure it matters as they mostly seemed 
> interested in good public policy. Socialism, leftists... is 
> everything political? Or do some people just care about 
> running a better country?
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Dana,
> >   I've read the article you reference, and, like the one I 
> provided a 
> >link to, it is interesting.  They make some good points. 
> However, like 
> >the PFF paper, it's an advocacy document. I found no mention of 
> >municipalities failing, or at least not doing as well, as commercial 
> >enterprises in delivering critical services. There are certainly 
> >examples, such as Philadelphia's PGW or NYC's water utility (nowhere 
> >near as bad as PGW I'm sure, but failing to meter water is 
> still pretty 
> >bad). No mention of a possible negative outcome from a 
> municipal offering.
> >   I am not too familiar with freepress.net but from 
> checking their web 
> >site, even though they claim to be non-partisan  the stories 
> they offer 
> >seem to be coming from a leftist point of view.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Dana Spiegel
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:06 AM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim,
> >>
> >>Perhaps you should do a bit more research.
> >>
> >>The PFF is well known to rely on half-truths and misrepresentations
> >>of fact to support their anti-municipal agenda.
> >>
> >>Free Press has released a white paper that provides the whole story,
> >>and if you look at government broadband initiatives, they are  
> >>overwhelmingly cost saving and beneficial to local communities.
> >>
> >>http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_white_paper.pdf
> >>
> >>Also, PFF's supporters include (and are primarily) every incumbent
> >>telecom and cable company: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
> >>
> >>While this isn't a problem in and of itself, it should make you
> >>wonder where their views and motivations are coming from.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dana Spiegel
> >>Executive Director
> >>NYCwireless
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>www.NYCwireless.net
> >>+1 917 402 0422
> >>
> >>Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> >>
> >>
> >>On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom 
> >>>business.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >>>
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> >>Date: 1/5/2006
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >Un/Subscribe: 
> >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Dustin,
   I'm all for a free market, are you?  Are you OK with a muni network
proposal competing on a level playing field with a proposal from a
commercial enterprise? I'm not for making everything political. I'm open for
a better way to describe our difference of opinion. Are you?
   

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Jim,
> Maybe making everything political is just a way to distract 
> people from 
> the real  issue.  The lack of properly functioning free market in 
> broadband has led to crappy over-priced services for American 
> consumers 
> and businesses. The lack of public policy that encourages 
> competition in 
> broadband hurts American in the long run.
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Dustin,
> >"Now that Jim Henry has shown his true colors nothing he 
> says can 
> >be taken seriously."
> >
> >Now was that nice?  What ARE my true colors?  Did you miss 
> my message 
> >criticizing Verizon?
> >
> >As to PFF, better check them out. Go to www.pff.org. Click on the 
> >"About PFF" link. (Hint: If you do that, it will tell you 
> what they say 
> >they are
> >about!)
> >They seem to be pretty upfront about their mission, what 
> they promote and
> >where they are coming from.  I happen to agree with a lot of 
> that. They ALSO
> >tell you who they are and who their supporters are.
> >
> >Is public policy advocacy only OK with you when it is 
> promoting leftist 
> >policy?
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:51 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>This report is authored by the Progress & Freedom people that
> >>have been 
> >>widely outed as "Astroturf" outfit. Astroturf is new use of 
> >>the term to 
> >>describe fake consumer groups and think tanks that are just 
> >>funded with 
> >>money from Verizon and the like. These firms are nothing but 
> >>a new form 
> >>of lobbying by the incumbents meant to look like real 
> >>research. If you 
> >>like to get a list of firms that produced industry funded 
> papers and 
> >>research. Check out this article in which Progress & Freedom is 
> >>specifically outed. Now that Jim Henry has shown his true 
> >>colors nothing 
> >>he says can be taken seriously. He is a mouthpiece for the 
> >>telecom lobby 
> >>and supporter of telecom monopolies. I thought the quick turn to 
> >>shouting about socialism made him suspect in the first place.
> >>
> >>*Bell SkunkWorks* *101*
> >>
> >>*/What is Astroturf? Skunk Works?/*
> >><http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf>*/ ---/*/The 
> >>secret workings to deceive the public./
> >>
> >>http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html
> >>
> >>
> >>http://muniwireless.com/municipal/504
> >>
> >>"Sascha Meinrath posted
> >><http://www.saschameinrath.com/?q=node/view/57> 
> >>a list of members of the boards of directors of two other 
> "astroturf 
> >>organizations", groups that claim to be looking out for the best 
> >>interests of the average consumer - but a quick look at their 
> >>boards of 
> >>directors tells you everything you need to know about them:
> >>
> >>Progress & Freedom Foundation
> >>
> >>*George A. (Jay) Keyworth II - Hewlett Packard Company and General
> >>Atomics * Raymond L. Gifford - President PFF * Jeffrey 
> Eisenach - PFF 
> >>and CapAnalysis * Mark Grady - George Mason Law School * 
> >>Larry Harlow - 
> >>Timmons & Company, Inc. * Peter Harter - ZG VEntures LLC"
> >>
> >>- Dustin -
> >>
> >>Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom
> >>>business.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >>>
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >>>Un/Subscribe:
> >>>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >>>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >>> 
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> >>Date: 1/5/2006
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

MANY of us care about running a better country. Why are those from the left
so intolerant of opinions they disagreee with?

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:57 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Dana Spiegel'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Jim,
> Freepress must be terrible because they are not a mouthpiece for huge 
> telecom corporations. Your right they can't be trusted. Personally I 
> would describe Freepress as politically progressive. I am not sure it 
> matters as they mostly seemed interested in good public policy. 
> Socialism, leftists... is everything political? Or do some 
> people just 
> care about running a better country?
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Dana,
> >   I've read the article you reference, and, like the one I 
> provided a 
> >link to, it is interesting.  They make some good points. 
> However, like 
> >the PFF paper, it's an advocacy document. I found no mention of 
> >municipalities failing, or at least not doing as well, as commercial 
> >enterprises in delivering critical services. There are certainly 
> >examples, such as Philadelphia's PGW or NYC's water utility (nowhere 
> >near as bad as PGW I'm sure, but failing to meter water is 
> still pretty 
> >bad). No mention of a possible negative outcome from a 
> municipal offering.
> >   I am not too familiar with freepress.net but from 
> checking their web 
> >site, even though they claim to be non-partisan  the stories 
> they offer 
> >seem to be coming from a leftist point of view.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Dana Spiegel
> >>Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:06 AM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim,
> >>
> >>Perhaps you should do a bit more research.
> >>
> >>The PFF is well known to rely on half-truths and misrepresentations
> >>of fact to support their anti-municipal agenda.
> >>
> >>Free Press has released a white paper that provides the whole story,
> >>and if you look at government broadband initiatives, they are  
> >>overwhelmingly cost saving and beneficial to local communities.
> >>
> >>http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_white_paper.pdf
> >>
> >>Also, PFF's supporters include (and are primarily) every incumbent
> >>telecom and cable company: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
> >>
> >>While this isn't a problem in and of itself, it should make you
> >>wonder where their views and motivations are coming from.
> >>
> >>
> >>Dana Spiegel
> >>Executive Director
> >>NYCwireless
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>www.NYCwireless.net
> >>+1 917 402 0422
> >>
> >>Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> >>
> >>
> >>On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom 
> >>>business.
> >>>
> >>>http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >>>
> >>>Jim
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>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/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> >>Date: 1/5/2006
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >Un/Subscribe: 
> >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

For gosh sakes, look at their (PFF.org)web site!  They LIST their sponsors.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Sourcewatch.org (formerly Disinfopedia.org) gives a better 
> background on PFF:
> * Lists as supporters BellSouth, EchoStar Communications 
> Corporation, Sprint, Philip Morris, and RJ Reynolds
> * Was the thinktank behind Newt Gingrich's project to 
> redesign the FDA (the leader of Gingrich's PAC is on the board)
> * Wrote several articles critical of open-source software 
> while listing Microsoft as a supporter
> 
> [http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Progress_and_Freedom_F
oundation
]

But why is this point important for a tech board?  

Articles from the Progress & Freedom Foundation are an example of
disinformation.  Disinformation works on a rational level (offering up
strawman arguments and dubious analyses) in order to build noise into a
discussion.  The discussion's signal-to-noise ratio becomes so bad very
little meaningful information makes it through. 

Check the latest NYCw front page article for how even the FCC has gotten
confused about the fact of natural monopoly (water, electricity,
cabling):

[http://nycwireless.net/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=56 ]

Cheers, 

Rob

P.S. Want to become savvier about where your media comes from?  Check
SourceWatch.org.


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release Date: 1/12/2006


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Billy Bob,
   Don't get your panties in a bunch. Just responding to a post directed at
me. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Give it up.!
> 
> Go back to technology
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Jim Henry
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:38 PM
> To: 'Dustin Goodwin'
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> Dustin,
> "Now that Jim Henry has shown his true colors nothing he 
> says can be taken seriously."
> 
> Now was that nice?  What ARE my true colors?  Did you miss my 
> message criticizing Verizon?
> 
> As to PFF, better check them out. Go to www.pff.org. Click on 
> the "About PFF" link. (Hint: If you do that, it will tell you 
> what they say they are
> about!)
> They seem to be pretty upfront about their mission, what they 
> promote and where they are coming from.  I happen to agree 
> with a lot of that. They ALSO tell you who they are and who 
> their supporters are.
> 
> Is public policy advocacy only OK with you when it is 
> promoting leftist policy?
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:51 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> > 
> > 
> > This report is authored by the Progress & Freedom people that have
> > been widely outed as "Astroturf" outfit. Astroturf is new 
> use of the 
> > term to describe fake consumer groups and think tanks that are just 
> > funded with money from Verizon and the like. These firms 
> are nothing 
> > but a new form of lobbying by the incumbents meant to look 
> like real 
> > research. If you like to get a list of firms that produced industry 
> > funded papers and research. Check out this article in which 
> Progress & 
> > Freedom is specifically outed. Now that Jim Henry has shown 
> his true 
> > colors nothing he says can be taken seriously. He is a 
> mouthpiece for 
> > the telecom lobby and supporter of telecom monopolies. I 
> thought the 
> > quick turn to shouting about socialism made him suspect in 
> the first 
> > place.
> > 
> > *Bell SkunkWorks* *101*
> > 
> > */What is Astroturf? Skunk Works?/* 
> > <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf>*/ ---/*/The 
> > secret workings to deceive the public./
> > 
> > http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html
> > 
> > 
> > http://muniwireless.com/municipal/504
> > 
> > "Sascha Meinrath posted 
> > <http://www.saschameinrath.com/?q=node/view/57>
> > a list of members of the boards of directors of two other "astroturf
> > organizations", groups that claim to be looking out for the best 
> > interests of the average consumer - but a quick look at 
> their boards 
> > of directors tells you everything you need to know about them:
> > 
> > Progress & Freedom Foundation
> > 
> > *George A. (Jay) Keyworth II - Hewlett Packard Company and General
> > Atomics * Raymond L. Gifford - President PFF * Jeffrey 
> Eisenach - PFF 
> > and CapAnalysis * Mark Grady - George Mason Law School * 
> Larry Harlow 
> > - Timmons & Company, Inc. * Peter Harter - ZG VEntures LLC"
> > 
> > - Dustin -
> > 
> > Jim Henry wrote:
> > 
> > >Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom
> > >business.
> > >
> > >http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> > >
> > >Jim
> > >
> > >--
> > >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > >Un/Subscribe:
> > >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > >  
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release
> > Date: 1/5/2006
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
> Date: 1/12/2006
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Dustin,
"Now that Jim Henry has shown his true colors nothing he says can be
taken seriously."

Now was that nice?  What ARE my true colors?  Did you miss my message
criticizing Verizon?

As to PFF, better check them out. Go to www.pff.org. Click on the "About
PFF" link. (Hint: If you do that, it will tell you what they say they are
about!)
They seem to be pretty upfront about their mission, what they promote and
where they are coming from.  I happen to agree with a lot of that. They ALSO
tell you who they are and who their supporters are.

Is public policy advocacy only OK with you when it is promoting leftist
policy?

Jim


> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:51 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> This report is authored by the Progress & Freedom people that 
> have been 
> widely outed as "Astroturf" outfit. Astroturf is new use of 
> the term to 
> describe fake consumer groups and think tanks that are just 
> funded with 
> money from Verizon and the like. These firms are nothing but 
> a new form 
> of lobbying by the incumbents meant to look like real 
> research. If you 
> like to get a list of firms that produced industry funded papers and 
> research. Check out this article in which Progress & Freedom is 
> specifically outed. Now that Jim Henry has shown his true 
> colors nothing 
> he says can be taken seriously. He is a mouthpiece for the 
> telecom lobby 
> and supporter of telecom monopolies. I thought the quick turn to 
> shouting about socialism made him suspect in the first place.
> 
> *Bell SkunkWorks* *101*
> 
> */What is Astroturf? Skunk Works?/* 
> <http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf>*/ ---/*/The 
> secret workings to deceive the public./
> 
> http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html
> 
> 
> http://muniwireless.com/municipal/504
> 
> "Sascha Meinrath posted 
> <http://www.saschameinrath.com/?q=node/view/57> 
> a list of members of the boards of directors of two other "astroturf 
> organizations", groups that claim to be looking out for the best 
> interests of the average consumer - but a quick look at their 
> boards of 
> directors tells you everything you need to know about them:
> 
> Progress & Freedom Foundation
> 
> *George A. (Jay) Keyworth II - Hewlett Packard Company and General 
> Atomics * Raymond L. Gifford - President PFF * Jeffrey Eisenach - PFF 
> and CapAnalysis * Mark Grady - George Mason Law School * 
> Larry Harlow - 
> Timmons & Company, Inc. * Peter Harter - ZG VEntures LLC"
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom 
> >business.
> >
> >http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >--
> >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >Un/Subscribe: 
> >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
   I've read the article you reference, and, like the one I provided a link
to, it is interesting.  They make some good points. However, like the PFF
paper, it's an advocacy document. I found no mention of municipalities
failing, or at least not doing as well, as commercial enterprises in
delivering critical services. There are certainly examples, such as
Philadelphia's PGW or NYC's water utility (nowhere near as bad as PGW I'm
sure, but failing to meter water is still pretty bad). No mention of a
possible negative outcome from a municipal offering.
   I am not too familiar with freepress.net but from checking their web
site, even though they claim to be non-partisan  the stories they offer seem
to be coming from a leftist point of view.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dana Spiegel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Perhaps you should do a bit more research.
> 
> The PFF is well known to rely on half-truths and misrepresentations  
> of fact to support their anti-municipal agenda.
> 
> Free Press has released a white paper that provides the whole story,  
> and if you look at government broadband initiatives, they are  
> overwhelmingly cost saving and beneficial to local communities.
> 
> http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_white_paper.pdf
> 
> Also, PFF's supporters include (and are primarily) every incumbent  
> telecom and cable company: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
> 
> While this isn't a problem in and of itself, it should make you  
> wonder where their views and motivations are coming from.
> 
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom
> > business.
> >
> > http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
   Perhjaps you should not jump to conclusions. I received thatr article
from CNET News that mornign. It looked interesting. I sent and email that
said "here is an interesting article." I still believe it is interesting.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dana Spiegel
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> Perhaps you should do a bit more research.
> 
> The PFF is well known to rely on half-truths and misrepresentations  
> of fact to support their anti-municipal agenda.
> 
> Free Press has released a white paper that provides the whole story,  
> and if you look at government broadband initiatives, they are  
> overwhelmingly cost saving and beneficial to local communities.
> 
> http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_white_paper.pdf
> 
> Also, PFF's supporters include (and are primarily) every incumbent  
> telecom and cable company: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html
> 
> While this isn't a problem in and of itself, it should make you  
> wonder where their views and motivations are coming from.
> 
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom
> > business.
> >
> > http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

To the best of my knowledge, most governments haven't proved they are good
at any business, even governing.

> -Original Message-
> From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 10:30 PM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> 
> 
> 
> Id quite like to see governments getting out of the telecom 
> [monopoly] 
> buisness.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:04:03 -0500
> > From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > Subject: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
> > 
> > Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom 
> > business.
> >
> > http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > --
> > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > Un/Subscribe: 
> > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >
> 
>   Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
>   Linux: Where do you want to go today?
>   BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
> 
> 
> Robin-David Hammond   KB3IEN
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom business.

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf

Jim

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Lars,
Currently, I guess you could say just two lines suitable for broadband
enter my home.
One is the power line. We do not have BPL available in ths area but I
thought I'd mention it since it is technically possible.
The other is coax provided by Comcast cable. From Comcast I get my
video, Internet, and digital voice service.
Now I do have copper from the ILEC (Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier) Verizon temrinated on the outside of my home. I disconnected them
and went with Comcast due to both better voice quality and lower price.
Verizon has now met Comcast's price, but they didn't do that until
competition with Comcast happened. I used Verizon and its predecessor Bell
of Pennsylvania for 29 years and they never rewarded me with this discount
when I was a loyal customer with nowhere to go. I'll stick with Comcast now.

I do have other choices but I don't use them. I could get fiber or
DSL based Internet from Verizon. I could get the same coax offerings I get
from Comcast from RCN Cable if I chose.  I could also get DSL from several
other resellers, and there is at least one wireless Internet provider in my
area.  All of these choices are right outside my door if I want them. 
I am moving about 40 miles away in a few months when my new home is
built. I will have pretty much the same options except fiber based Internet
from Verizon, and my second cable company is Service Electric instead of
RCN.  Again though I have already ordered service from Comcast.  I am
however going to have Verizon drop copper in the utility trench going up to
my house for they will do it no charge. Should I decide to use them later it
would probably cost me to have the copper run for it's a 900 foot run up my
driveway to the house. For new construction they will do it for free since
they don't know I don't plan to use them. 
So you can see, at least in my area, I have quite a bit of choice in
broadband, all thanks to capitalism, not government!
Respectfully,

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Lars Aronsson
> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 5:39 AM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: 'nycwireless'
SNIP
> 
> I hope this means we're back to discussing broadband.  Good.
> 
> Jim, how many physical lines suitable for broadband (phone, cable 
> TV, fiber, etc.) enter your home?  This can be a critical factor 
> for achieving competition and thus lower prices for broadband.
> 
> My apartment has 3 lines: phone, cable TV, and the aforementioned 
> CAT-5 ethernet.
> 
> The copper phone line belongs to the old incumbent, the national 
> telecom, now named Telia-Sonera.  In theory they are forced to 
> open their facilities to competing DSL providers, and this works 
> reasonably well in a city where I live, but in many smaller towns 
> or rural areas the telco often gets away with claiming that their 
> facilities are booked full and there is no practical way to allow 
> competitors in.  Telecom deregulation came later to Sweden than to 
> the U.S., and our FCC is weaker.  Our old incumbent is stronger, 
> and has been able to maintain more of its old monopoly situation. 
> This is bad, the only good solution is to avoid the phone network 
> all together.
> 
> The TV cable belongs to the cable company which also provides 
> broadband Internet access, but doesn't allow any competition over 
> this line, and there is no legal requirement for this.  Vertical 
> integration from the physical cable to the services offered is bad 
> for competition.
> 
> The third line, the LAN, is necessary for providing broadband in 
> true competition with the two other lines.  Unfortunately, the LAN 
> is now owned by the ISP who installed it, so in a way this is 
> another case of vertical integration.  I would have preferred that 
> my coop had built its own LAN and then connected two or more ISPs 
> to the switch in the basement.  But this would have required a 
> technical insight that the coop didn't have in 1999.  This is not 
> a perfect solution, but it's one of the best that I've seen in 
> Sweden.  Maybe the best part is that it is totally independent of 
> the old hated telco.
> 
> The municipal street fiber that connects the LAN to the ISP is a 
> monopoly, but I haven't heard that it has been mismanaged.  Some 
> smaller towns want to be service providers as well as fiber owners 
> (vertical integration again) and this would inevitably lead to 
> bias against other service providers.  Broadband seems to work 
> better in reasonably big cities, and worse in smaller places.  So 
> it should work better in New York City than anywhere else.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Aronsson 

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
I never stated or meant to imply that I was against all taxes. Some are
necessary.  The problem  is that far too many people in our society look to
government to take care of them. That was never intended by those who
founded our country.  Take a look at the 10th amendment to the U.S.
Constitution:
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people."
 
I once saw a Democrat questioned on why he did not see that his specific
legislative proposal was not a violation of the 10th amendment.  His reply
was: 
 
"Why, if you took that literally, the Federal government would hardly be
able to do ANYTHING!"  
 
Yes, he was getting close there but he still didn't get it.  That is EXACTLY
what the intent of our founders was.  Provide for the common defense,
deliver mail, put bad people away where they could not hurt the good people,
and pretty much every thing else was to be the responsibility of
individuals, OR, if individuals preferred, they could delegate more
responsibility to their local and state governments, as permitted by their
individual state constitutions, but NOT the federal government.
 
As for your other arguments, there are private roads that work quite
well but I agree that for the most part interstate highways are best under
the jurisdiction of the federal governemtn and if anthing passed the
interstate commerce clause test, it's highways.  That said, I can see the
same argument being made for broadband but up to this point, only one person
has even approached making that argument on this list. Instead, the argument
has mostly been that government support for broadband should be ok because
it's a "good" thing.  Helping poor people get broadband Internet access has
no legal justification that I can see.  Helping to make broadband pervasive
and make it faster for all because it is good for business IS an argument
that will pass Constitutional muster IMO.
 
Of course, the same can be said for telephone service and now with
things like QVC and Home Shopping Network, video too.  Yet, those mediums
have never been federalized, only regulated.
 
Respectfully,
 
Jim
 

-Original Message-
From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: 'Rob Kelley'; 'nycwireless'
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!


Jim, 

this has been a good discussion so far, and I certainly respect your right
to argue that you don't want to pay as much in taxes as you do.

But making the analogy that our government collecting taxes is robbing
individuals and amounts to extortion is blatantly incorrect.

By your argument, as a private citizen, I should come after *you* for making
use of lots of "public" infrastructure for free if you don't pay your taxes.
Let's not forget that fundamentally, our government is a collective
organization of THE PEOPLE of the USA. And by collecting taxes (ignoring the
argument about *how much* to tax) is an action that is given BY THE PEOPLE
to our government to enforce based on the understanding that some amount of
this country (services, land, etc.) is public property/service specifically
because holding it in the public's interest benefits many/most/all people
collectively, and that the cost of providing those services must be a burden
on many/most/all people.

Taxes are the way that we have all agreed we can share this country with
each other.

Now, you can argue you are paying to much in taxes, or that you don't
believe that your taxes are being used in your best interest. That's exactly
the purpose of the 1st Amendment. And you should argue those things, because
we do need to talk about them.

The fundamental argument that is being made by a number of individuals is
that access to the internet has become (is becoming) a public service, and
that as a public service, we need to think about it in a different way. Just
as we don't allow streets to be built and sold using market mechanisms (we
understand that this would not serve everyone's best interest), perhaps we
shouldn't allow internet service to be provided solely based on market
mechanisms.

Capitalism isn't what made this country great. Capitalism makes a small
percentage of this country wealthy. But generally, it works. The issue at
hand is: does capitalism and free market economics work properly for
internet service, and is the outcome of this method proper? Economics 101
will tell you that there are limits to free market economies and the powers
of capitalism. Its just a tool, and like any tool, its not universal.



Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Jan 7, 2006,

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Dustin,
   I'm not quite sure how you form conclusions so I guess I better be more
specific. I never said nor do I believe  I inferred that my broadband sucks.
I think it's great!  I have 3 cable modems each providing 8 mbs download and
1 mbps upload. Two of the 3 I have aggregated through a twin wan port
router. I love it. I don't think it's expensive at all.
Respectfully,

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 5:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Lars Aronsson'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Jim,
> I am not sure what rocket you had to strap to this article to 
> make the 
> leap from public policy that promotes broadband to socialism. But it 
> must have been large! Is NYC's water tunnel number 3 
> socialism or smart 
> public policy? What the rural electrification authority socialism or 
> smart public policy? YOUR ALREADY PAYING SUBSIDIES to the incumbent 
> telcos and getting nothing for it. How about we stop talking about 
> socialism and start talking about replacing dumb public policy (like 
> paying incumbent telcos for broadband we don't get) with smart public 
> policy. If you happy with current arrangement good for you. I am glad 
> your broadband sucks and is expensive. Maybe you do something that 
> doesn't depend on ubiquitous global Internet connectivity priced 
> properly. But I doubt it.
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Lars,
> >I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but 
> you've got to 
> >draw the line somewhere. I certainly don't want my tax 
> dollars paying 
> >for soeone else's water, electricity, gas, medicine, education, 
> >healthcare, etc. As to the  cost of your broadband 
> connection, I'd be 
> >willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and your fellow 
> >subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as part of that 
> >$40/month.  Beyond that, I'd also  bet you pay a much larger 
> percentage 
> >of your income in taxes than I, though mine are already far 
> too high. 
> >Taxation is theft and thus immoral.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Lars Aronsson
> >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
> >>To: 'nycwireless'
> >>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries where 
> broadband 
> >>>is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it really 
> cheaper or 
> >>>is it subsidized by the government? I honestly don't know 
> the answer.  
> >>>I would like it to be cheaper here also and more 
> widespread, but not 
> >>>at the expense of free enterprise.
> >>>If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>I heard that socialism has gone away now that "cialis" is caught
> >>in the spam filters.  Seriously, though, I have yet to see street 
> >>lights operated on a pay-per-view commercial basis.  Somebody paid 
> >>once-and-for-all to pave and light the streets, and it could be 
> >>tax money.  Does that make it socialism?
> >>
> >>In Sweden I pay 320 SEK/mo ($40) for 10 Mbit/s.  This is possible
> >>because I live in a coop apartment building, where every apartment 
> >>is wired by an ISP, and the in-house switched LAN is connected to 
> >>a municipal fiber in the basement. This ISP (www.bredband.com) was 
> >>founded with venture capital during the dotcom boom and got a 
> >>contract with the largest national association of apartment coops 
> >>(www.hsb.se).  Through this contract, apartment coops that are 
> >>members have a very streamlined procedure for signing up to get 
> >>their apartment buildings wired.
> >>
> >>This spring, the ISP is introducing a reduced price 2 Mbit/s
> >>offering (still over CAT-5 twisted pair ethernet, so I guess it is 
> >>really 10 Mbit/s but bandwidth limited) and at the same time my 
> >>line is upgraded to 100 Mbit/s at unchanged price.
> >>
> >>As far as I know, there is no direct government subsidy, but a lot
> >>of factors work together:
> >>
> >> * Compared to the U.S., mor

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Dana,
   I must respectfully disagree with your statement that government and
private water companies serve two different markets.  My water company is a
publicly traded commercial corporation. They are not a government entity.
They have bought the land for their reservoirs and all their equipment and
infrastructure with funds provided by their stockholders. They do a fine
job.  So far no one has disagreed with my uncertain statement the NYC does
not provide water meters so I assume that I was correct, so in that respect
the private corporation does a much better job in that it can detect waste
due to leaks and enforce restrictions during time of drought. 

Respectfully,

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dana Spiegel
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: Rob Kelley
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> And of course, herein lies yet another good example. Coca-cola does  
> sell us our water. Go to any supermarket and you can buy 
> water by the  
> gallon from any number of companies. But this doesn't mean that your  
> government turns off the water utility. If they did that, people  
> wouldn't be able to live. Water Utilities and Private water 
> companies  
> serve two different markets and purposes. And they are compatible  
> with each other.
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Jan 7, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Rob Kelley wrote:
> 
> > I agree the market is not going to solve this one.
> >
> > New York City has a water supply.  City leaders made it a 
> priority to 
> > control this and built reservoirs.  Having this steady, 
> reliable and 
> > affordable supply expanded the city's growth rate and tax base.
> >
> > Now what about our broadband supply, especially compared to South 
> > Korea?  Not so good.
> >
> > Put another way, what if the city leaders didn't have the foresight
> > back then about ensuring steady, reliable, and affordable supply?   
> > What
> > if instead Coca-Cola sold you your water?
> >
> > Broadband is a crucial part of a municipality's infrastructure.
> >
> > For the sake of its future New York City needs a clear broadband
> > policy
> > NOW.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > --- "Schainbaum, Robert" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a 
> >> franchise and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the problem 
> >> with monopoly?
> >> Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's the
> >> problem
> >> with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. 
> First, an
> >> ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least 
> the belief
> >> of
> >> some people in some economics depts. Second, competition 
> for grant of
> >>
> >> the monopoly through use of influence with the local government, 
> >> whether that be a municipal or a state government, just 
> seems to lead 
> >> to obviously sub-optimal outcomes.
> >>
> >> Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>> Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away.  
> Due to the
> >> ILECs
> >>> entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to
> >> have to
> >>> jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to.
> >> They've
> >>> already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a 
> company can apply
> >> for a
> >>> state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a 
> franchise with
> >> each
> >>> municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for
> >> the
> >>> munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or 
> discount in
> >> return
> >>> for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm
> >> sure the
> >>> cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this 
> to change
> >> for
> >>> Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and not have a level 
> playing field so
> >> they
> >>> will do their utmost to be included in these changes or 
> get the law
> >> changed
> >>> back so that the ILECs must compete with  the same rules. Jim
> >

[nycwireless] RE: A simple request

[Jim Henry]

Thanks.

> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Glover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Michael Stearne'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: A simple request
> 
> 
> This thread is getting silly, and is not relevant to the 
> purposes of the 
> group - if possible, could the thread be limited to the interested 
> parties - if you want to be on this, please send an e-mail to 
> Michael or 
> Jim, and then they will involve only you - and not the whole group.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Michael,
> >YOU get them.  I'm willing to do my best to contain them, by not 
> >purchasing anything made in China or shopping at stores like Walmart 
> >which sell a majority of Chinese products.  Most of the Chinese 
> >companies making "non-military" products like toys and 
> textiles are in 
> >fact owned by the Chinese military.  When one buys products made in 
> >China your money goes to fund weapons pointed at us. It's 
> important to 
> >pick your battles intelligently.  Our nation is strong, but 
> still has 
> >been so weakened that I don't think we have the courage to 
> take on such 
> >a war. Look at all the bleeding heart liberals whining about 
> Iraq! Too 
> >many of us have become so weak and self-centered that we are 
> unwilling 
> >to make any sacrifice.  I can't imagine most of today's 
> citizens being 
> >willing to make the sacrifices our ancestors did in WWII.  
> Many nowadays feel they are sacrificing when gas
> >hits $3.00/gallon!   No, a war with China now would be 
> unwise and may yet be
> >avoided. At least I hope we can turn things around without a 
> war with 
> >them.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >>Behalf Of Michael Stearne
> >>Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:06 AM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Cc: Billy Bob; Dustin Goodwin; nycwireless
> >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>
> >>On 1/8/06, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Billy Bob,
> >>>
> >>>Let's see, GDP keeps on clicking at 3-4 % growth pretty much every
> >>>year... The same was true in 2005.  Inflation practically 
> >>>non-existent. Unemployment about as low as it's been ever in our 
> >>>history, Home ownership at an all time high.  State of the 
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>country is
> >>
> >>
> >>>such that those who the U.S classifies as in poverty often own
> >>>televisions, phones, cars, and get food every day! Compare that to 
> >>>some other countries.  We've removed one of the most evil 
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>dictators in
> >>
> >>
> >>>history from power and in only 3 years that country, which
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>has never
> >>
> >>
> >>>known a democratic tradition, has easily made more progress
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>than our
> >>
> >>
> >>>own
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>You've convinced me.  Let get those commie bastards in China
> >>next! Freedom is on the march! When are we invading China for 
> >>their human rights and U.N. violations?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> >>Date: 1/5/2006
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >--
> >NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >Un/Subscribe: 
> >http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Agreed, but of course please allow me to respond when someone introduces a
political argument. My point was on-topic, that broadband is not cheaper
elsewhere. Much of the other discussion has gotten way off-topic, but I have
not introduced it, only responded. When a govt. funds or subsidizes
broadband, it does not make it free.  It still takes real capital to carry
out fiber builds and install the electronics to make it all work. That
capital never actually comes from the govt. for governments do not create
wealth, they only redistribute it.  I never said I would discuss or prove
how to make broadband access cheaper. I only wanted to correct the
misconception that it was cheaper outside the U.S. than in.  I love
broadband and want it everywhere too. I've been online since 1980 and still
remember paying $300/month phone bills in 1980 for 300bps connections so at
the same time I also recognize and appreciate the progress. 

Cheaper and faster broadband?  Take away as many government obstacles as
possible and it will happen. It costs me (my employer to be accurate) about
$20,000 a mile to do underground fiber.  A good chunk of that is due to
permitting fees and restrictive work rules imposed by municipalities.  Work
on eliminating that or at least reducing it, and you will get more and
cheaper and faster broadband.
Respectfully,
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Lars Aronsson
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:29 AM
> To: 'nycwireless'
> Cc: Jim Henry
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > We're getting way off topic now. We could go on and on, but
> > before someone rightfully objects, I just wanted to address the 
> > point that broadband is NOT cheaper elsewhere than it is in the 
> > U.S.
> 
> I'm sorry that I was fooled into a discussion with you Jim.  I 
> thought that you honestly wanted to discuss broadband and how it 
> could be made cheaper, but you only wanted to push your own ideas 
> about taxes and politics.  Perhaps you should do this on some 
> political mailing list instead of this technical context.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Michael,
If you honestly believe the war with Iraq was for the reason you list,
then you need to diversify your news sources and get informed. Additionally,
Vic and I have been civil and tried to discuss this intelligently. I see no
reason to resort to  name calling, as now both us us have been called
"Kool-aid drinker". That's usually what happens when one side of an issue
can no longer support its argument with facts.
Respectfully,
Jim
   

> -Original Message-
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:16 AM
> To: vic
> Cc: Cienfuegos; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> On 1/8/06, vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They said they had "nuclear capabilities" not "nuke 
> weapons". There is 
> > a
> 
> What "nuclear" capabilities did they find?
> 
> > difference. Well lets say you go walking down the street 
> and you see a 
> > gun... you pick it up you look in the chamber and it is 
> empty. A gun 
> > with out bullets is still a weapon. All you have to do is put the 
> > bullets in. BTW
> 
> No, let's say you invaded a country for an empty tractor 
> trailer and 3,000 U.S. soldiers  died because of it.  An 
> empty "laboratory" is a weapon?
> 
> > I don't think the people from Alabama appreciate your 
> comment. "You" 
> > are safe because people have gone and died to keep "you" safe. Be a 
> > little more appreciative.
> 
> I have a cousin permanently disabled from his service in Iraq 
> and more than one friend currently in the desert.  Don't 
> question my patriotism.
> 
> > get with the program and stop trying to be cute.
> 
> BTW it's "ciao" not "cio" Kool-Aid drinker.

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Michael,
YOU get them.  I'm willing to do my best to contain them, by not
purchasing anything made in China or shopping at stores like Walmart which
sell a majority of Chinese products.  Most of the Chinese companies making
"non-military" products like toys and textiles are in fact owned by the
Chinese military.  When one buys products made in China your money goes to
fund weapons pointed at us. It's important to pick your battles
intelligently.  Our nation is strong, but still has been so weakened that I
don't think we have the courage to take on such a war. Look at all the
bleeding heart liberals whining about Iraq! Too many of us have become so
weak and self-centered that we are unwilling to make any sacrifice.  I can't
imagine most of today's citizens being willing to make the sacrifices our
ancestors did in WWII.  Many nowadays feel they are sacrificing when gas
hits $3.00/gallon!   No, a war with China now would be unwise and may yet be
avoided. At least I hope we can turn things around without a war with them.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Michael Stearne
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 3:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Billy Bob; Dustin Goodwin; nycwireless
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> On 1/8/06, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Billy Bob,
> >
> > Let's see, GDP keeps on clicking at 3-4 % growth pretty much every 
> > year... The same was true in 2005.  Inflation practically 
> > non-existent. Unemployment about as low as it's been ever in our 
> > history, Home ownership at an all time high.  State of the 
> country is 
> > such that those who the U.S classifies as in poverty often own 
> > televisions, phones, cars, and get food every day! Compare that to 
> > some other countries.  We've removed one of the most evil 
> dictators in 
> > history from power and in only 3 years that country, which 
> has never 
> > known a democratic tradition, has easily made more progress 
> than our 
> > own
> 
> You've convinced me.  Let get those commie bastards in China 
> next! Freedom is on the march! When are we invading China for 
> their human rights and U.N. violations?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband

[Jim Henry]

You overlooked Vic's and my statements about the multiple cease fire
violations as Iraq continuously tried to shoot down our planes. Many folks
try to say our actions were pre-emptive.  They weren't. The war existed
since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991.  The world reversed those actions through
military force and agreed to a cease fire and thus save Hussein's butt under
certain conditions. Iraq repeatedly violated those cease fire terms. When
the U.N. lacked the cajones to take action when its own terms were
repeatedly violated, a coalition of the honest and non-emasculated did. 
Do we really need to argue these leftist points in a tech forum?

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Michael Stearne
> Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:55 AM
> To: vic
> Cc: Cienfuegos; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> On 1/7/06, vic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We already found WMD. We found a mobile weapons laboratory almost 
> > right away. There were no chems in it but is was there. We 
> know he had 
> > WMD because
> 
> So what you're saying is that we invaded Iraq for an empty 
> double-wide trailer?  Are we invading Alabama next (no 
> offense - Roll Tide)?
> 
> Where are the "mushroom cloud" weapons we were told they had?
> 
> > WE the US GAVE WMD to Iraq to fight Iran.
> > Please I thirst for intelligent convo..
> 
> > Prior to invasion Iraq's military FIRED on our US planes almost 50 
> > TIMES.
> 
> And exactly 0 U.S. soldiers died because of these shots.  At 
> this point we could just send in UAVs to do the patrolling 
> over the then contained Iraq.  Since the war 2193 U.S. 
> citizens have been killed and 16155 soldiers (including my 
> cousin) have been  permantly wounded.
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Robert,
Recent U.S inflation rates:
2004 2.68%
2003 2.27%
2002 1.59%
2001 2.83%
2000 3.38%
Final data  is not in yet for 2005 but it looks like it will run a little
over 3%  I haven't really felt inflation as an issue since Jimmy Carter was
President and it sometimes hit close to 20%

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Schainbaum, Robert
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:37 PM
> To: Billy Bob
> Cc: 'nycwireless'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> There does seem to be a lot of inflation. As long as we're 
> going way off 
> topic, I'd like to see the Fed continue tightening for at 
> least another 
> year. Way too much inflation.
> 
> Billy Bob wrote:
> 
> >No... I'm not kidding. If you really believe that, then you live in 
> >LaLa land.
> >
> >Not only does our economy suck but so does our current state of our 
> >country as a whole.
> > 
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Jim Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:58 AM
> >To: 'Billy Bob'; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> >Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >
> >You're kidding, right? ;-)
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:08 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> >>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>
> >>"...we have the strongest economy in the world"...
> >>
> >>Where do you live??
> >>
> >>Certainly not here.
> >>
> >>Bruce
> >>
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
> >>Henry
> >>Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:20 PM
> >>To: 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> >>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No 
> thanks to govt.
> >>subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a 
> socialist load on 
> >>our economy.  The fact that we have less socialism than most other 
> >>countries is probably the main reason that we have the strongest 
> >>economy in the world,
> >>the envy of other nations.   Just my two cents.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>-Original Message-
> >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Behalf Of Dustin
> >>
> >>
> >>>Goodwin
> >>>Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> >>>To: nycwireless
> >>>Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>why not of
> >>
> >>
> >>>the municipal broadband debate you must read this article. Some of 
> >>>the conclusions: The US is desperately behind in broaband 
> compared to 
> >>>the rest the world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying way 
> >>>too
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>much for way
> >>
> >>
> >>>too little compared to the rest of the world.
> >>>US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and slowed
> >>>investment. Lack of Federal and State policy/programs/tax 
> >>>breaks/incentives are mostly to blame.
> >>>As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> >>>enterprise is not the best system for bringing real low
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>cost broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>>to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>broadband
> >>
> >>
> >>>grid and your expecting help from private telcos... your screwed. 
> >>>Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has been 
> >>>shown to encourage private sector investment. Most places 
> including 
> >>>NYC should be shopping around for a municipal broadband 
> solution if 
> >>>they expect their bu

RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband

[Jim Henry]

No.  I don't think it was neccesary and I don't see the connection to war
depbts (whose?) Everyone knows Hussein had them but he obvously hid or got
rid of most of them. The war occurred because he violated terms of the cease
fire of 1991.  Among the violations were daily firing on of U.S. and British
planes patrolling the no fly zones over Iraq.  Please email me directly if
you'd like to discuss further. It's just not fair to the members of this
list to keep arguing these leftist and socialist issues on a wireless list.
Thanks.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Billy Bob
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:37 PM
> To: 'vic'; 'Cienfuegos'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> I'll bet you're still looking for WMD's to justify "war debts"
> 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vic
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:32 PM
> To: Cienfuegos; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> Biggest debtor yes but not debt by proportion to GDP. Our 
> debt is small when compared to our GDP. War debts let us have 
> comparative safety on the streets to trade and partially keep 
> up the value of the USD.
> 
> -=vic
> ---
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cienfuegos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:35 PM
> Subject: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> > Lets try to keep our conversations down to earth please.
> >
> > Those who are terrified about govt. subsidized broadband, 
> rather than 
> > repeating the erroneous and semi-religious mantra of the 
> wonders of a 
> > capitalist economy a little education on the subject would 
> go a long 
> > way.  The biggest debtor nation in the world is the USA, 
> and where is 
> > the outcry for the 40% of the gnp that goes to fund the 
> pentagon and 
> > other war related depts?
> >
> > Lets keep it on the tech tip shall we, that is why signed 
> on for this 
> > mailing list.
> >
> > Aias
> >
> 
> 
> --
> --
> 
> 
> 
> > --
> > 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/
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Oh and I guess I should add that while violent crime continues to decline in
the U.S., it steadily increases in Europe, Australia, and the U.K. where
they now have HIGHER violent crime rates than in the U.S., something most
Europeans often don't know.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Billy Bob
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> No... I'm not kidding. If you really believe that, then you 
> live in LaLa land. 
> 
> Not only does our economy suck but so does our current state 
> of our country as a whole. 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:58 AM
> To: 'Billy Bob'; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> You're kidding, right? ;-)
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:08 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > 
> > "...we have the strongest economy in the world"...
> > 
> > Where do you live??
> > 
> > Certainly not here.
> > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Henry
> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:20 PM
> > To: 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No 
> thanks to govt.
> > subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a 
> socialist load on 
> > our economy.  The fact that we have less socialism than most other 
> > countries is probably the main reason that we have the strongest 
> > economy in the world,
> > the envy of other nations.   Just my two cents.
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Dustin
> > > Goodwin
> > > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> > > To: nycwireless
> > > Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or
> > why not of
> > > the municipal broadband debate you must read this 
> article. Some of 
> > > the conclusions: The US is desperately behind in broaband 
> compared 
> > > to the rest the world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying 
> > > way too
> > much for way
> > > too little compared to the rest of the world.
> > > US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and slowed
> > > investment. Lack of Federal and State policy/programs/tax 
> > > breaks/incentives are mostly to blame.
> > > As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> > > enterprise is not the best system for bringing real low
> > cost broadband
> > > to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the
> > broadband
> > > grid and your expecting help from private telcos... your screwed. 
> > > Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has been 
> > > shown to encourage private sector investment. Most places 
> including 
> > > NYC should be shopping around for a municipal broadband 
> solution if 
> > > they expect their businesses to compete on a global level.
> > > The US communication infrastructure is stagnating and the
> > fixes will
> > > come from a combination public policy *AND* private enterprise.
> > > 
> > > *Let There Be Wi-Fi*
> > > Broadband is the electricity of the 21st century-and much 
> of America
> > > is being left in the dark.
> > > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
> > > --
> > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > > Un/Subscribe: 
> > > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > > 

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Billy Bob,

Let's see, GDP keeps on clicking at 3-4 % growth pretty much every year...
The same was true in 2005.  Inflation practically non-existent. Unemployment
about as low as it's been ever in our history, Home ownership at an all time
high.  State of the country is such that those who the U.S classifies as in
poverty often own televisions, phones, cars, and get food every day! Compare
that to some other countries.  We've removed one of the most evil dictators
in history from power and in only 3 years that country, which has never
known a democratic tradition, has easily made more progress than our own
country in its first dozen years. We've done that, all the while suffering
lower casualty rates than any war we've ever had to fight.  We've influenced
Libya to renounce its WMD program. We had a lot to do with freeing Lebanon
from Syria's grip. Very likley that Assad in Syria will fall this year 
After being attacked in 2001, our country's defense and security forces have
prevented all attempts since. I am not naïve enough to believe that al Queda
hasn't tried.  Simultaneously we have set up a kill zone in Iraq where every
every month hundreds of terrorists from all over the world continue to
funnel in, while we continue to capture and kill them.
While our economy just keeps on humming, the economies of western Europe
continue to sputter.  
So how exactly do you MEASURE a good economy??  Probably the greatest
problem facing Americans today is that we are getting FAT??

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> No... I'm not kidding. If you really believe that, then you 
> live in LaLa land. 
> 
> Not only does our economy suck but so does our current state 
> of our country as a whole. 
>  
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:58 AM
> To: 'Billy Bob'; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> You're kidding, right? ;-)
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:08 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > 
> > "...we have the strongest economy in the world"...
> > 
> > Where do you live??
> > 
> > Certainly not here.
> > 
> > Bruce
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Henry
> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:20 PM
> > To: 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No 
> thanks to govt.
> > subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a 
> socialist load on 
> > our economy.  The fact that we have less socialism than most other 
> > countries is probably the main reason that we have the strongest 
> > economy in the world,
> > the envy of other nations.   Just my two cents.
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Dustin
> > > Goodwin
> > > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> > > To: nycwireless
> > > Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or
> > why not of
> > > the municipal broadband debate you must read this 
> article. Some of 
> > > the conclusions: The US is desperately behind in broaband 
> compared 
> > > to the rest the world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying 
> > > way too
> > much for way
> > > too little compared to the rest of the world.
> > > US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and slowed
> > > investment. Lack of Federal and State policy/programs/tax 
> > > breaks/incentives are mostly to blame.
> > > As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> > > enterprise is not the best system for bringing real low
> > cost broadband
> > > to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the
> > broadband
> > > grid and your expecting 

RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Yes, in absolute terms our debt is large because our economy is so large.
That's a GOOD thing!

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vic
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:32 PM
> To: Cienfuegos; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> Biggest debtor yes but not debt by proportion to GDP. Our 
> debt is small when 
> compared to our GDP.
> War debts let us have comparative safety on the streets to trade and 
> partially keep up the value of the USD.
> 
> -=vic
> ---
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Cienfuegos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:35 PM
> Subject: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> > Lets try to keep our conversations down to earth please.
> >
> > Those who are terrified about govt. subsidized broadband, 
> rather than 
> > repeating the erroneous and semi-religious mantra of the 
> wonders of a 
> > capitalist economy a little education on the subject would 
> go a long 
> > way.  The biggest debtor nation in the world is the USA, 
> and where is 
> > the outcry for the 40% of the gnp that goes to fund the 
> pentagon and 
> > other war related depts?
> >
> > Lets keep it on the tech tip shall we, that is why signed 
> on for this 
> > mailing list.
> >
> > Aias
> >
> 
> 
> --
> --
> 
> 
> > --
> > 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/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband

[Jim Henry]

Ah, if only I were as well informed as you!  Thanks for the guidance.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Cienfuegos
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:35 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] govt. subsidy and broadband
> 
> 
> Lets try to keep our conversations down to earth please.
> 
> Those who are terrified about govt. subsidized broadband, 
> rather than repeating the erroneous and semi-religious mantra 
> of the wonders of a capitalist economy a little education on 
> the subject would go a long way.  The biggest debtor nation 
> in the world is the USA, and where is the outcry for the 40% 
> of the gnp that goes to fund the pentagon and other war related depts?
> 
> Lets keep it on the tech tip shall we, that is why signed on 
> for this mailing list.
> 
> Aias
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Robert,
   It is not a monopoly because in Texas, Verizon will not be the only
franchisee.  Time Warner has also applied. I imagine others may do the same.
In my town, the municipaliity does not limit the number of MSOs to two.
However, to get a franchise the MSO must agree to serve the entire town, not
just the higher income and densely populated areas that are most profitable
to serve. So far only two company's have been willing to make that financial
commitment. When they do, they've got every right to try to earn as much
profit as possible on that considerable investment.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Schainbaum, Robert
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> How is the Texas franchise different other franchises? How is 
> it not in 
> its heart of hearts a monopoly?
> 
> Re the situation in the place where you live, I don't know 
> how they've 
> worked it out, but even an agreement that allows you to select either 
> RCN or Comcast is still a duopoly and duopoly is considered just as 
> economically damaging as monopoly.
> 
> DSL is an inferior solution as most people in this list will attest. 
> It's almost degrading to be driven to DSL. FTTH sizzles, but 
> it costs a 
> lot and it's only available on a limited basis. Oh, sorry, that's how 
> monopolies profit maximize: they restrict supply so that the market 
> clearing price is well above marginal cost. Some speculate 
> that Verizon 
> is only rolling out to the more affluent communities, i.e, 
> communities 
> that will pay and not cause account maintenance issues. Skimming the 
> cream. Going to where the market clearing price will involve 
> the least cost.
> 
> It sounds that where your moving in a few months will reprise 
> the same 
> duopoly scenario that you have where you now live, although this time 
> the it will be Comcast and Service Electric in bed with each other. I 
> know that the Verizon offering sizzles, but it's a lot to pay just to 
> get close to what the South Koreans have. And I don't know whether at 
> the different price points that cable and Verizon FIOS are real 
> competitors. Then there are the other quasi-monopoly features of 
> Verizon's business practices.
> 
> Your theory of the MSO is that the city strikes a devil's 
> bargain with 
> some private company and provides all sorts of goodies to entice the 
> private company to exercise monopoly control over its 
> business. In some 
> cases, there's really no choice but to have one company run 
> the cables, 
> or one company run the phone lines, or one company handle electric 
> transmission, etc. Again, I don't see why the city just doesn't grant 
> itself the franchise. And, again, I don't see that duopoly is a good 
> substitute for monopoly franchise, it's the same thing in practice.
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Robert,
> >   Govt. video franchises are not always monopolies. That depends on 
> >the municipality or govt. entity granting it. In the case of 
> the Texas 
> >state-wide franchise it is not. In the community where I live, two 
> >cable companies, RCN and Comcast, have franchises so I have 
> my choice. 
> >For broadband I have even more choices if I opt to go for 
> DSL or FTTH.  
> >Where I am moving in about 6 months, about 40 miles from 
> here, again, I 
> >will have my choice of Comcast,Service Electric, or Verizon 
> for video, 
> >broadband and voice, plus numerous DSL resellers if I want 
> it.  I know 
> >in the past in some communities municipalities would offer 
> monopolies 
> >because they could extort more out of the MSO but I do not 
> think that 
> >is legal anymore, at least not in PA.
> >
> >Jim
> >  
> >
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Rob,
   It just might have worked out just fine if NYC did not decide to be a
water provider.  My water provider is a publicly traded corporation and we
have very high quality water here.  Also, every customer has a water meter!
The more water we use, the more we pay. Now I don't know if this is still
true but I remember hearing several times over past decades, when there were
droughts in the Northeast U.S. was that there was always a problem getting
New Yorkers to conserve water, for they did not have water meters so there
was no way to enforce conservation.  Again, not living in NYC I don't know
if this is still true or was ever true for that matter, but if so it
illustrates a real problem.  It seems that if NYC did not have a profit
motive they would not have wanted to make the investment in meters. A
capitalistic enterprise is much more interested in protecting its assets so
they provide meters and those who use (or waste) the most water pay the most
money, and when a drought requires an actual reduction in water used, the
violators can be identified. 
Or, look into how successful PGW, the Philadelphia Gas Works is. The
city is now trying to pressure the state PUC to force a commercial utility
to take it over.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:59 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> I agree the market is not going to solve this one.  
> 
> New York City has a water supply.  City leaders made it a 
> priority to control this and built reservoirs.  Having this 
> steady, reliable and affordable supply expanded the city's 
> growth rate and tax base. 
> 
> Now what about our broadband supply, especially compared to 
> South Korea?  Not so good. 
> 
> Put another way, what if the city leaders didn't have the 
> foresight back then about ensuring steady, reliable, and 
> affordable supply?  What
> if instead Coca-Cola sold you your water?
> 
> Broadband is a crucial part of a municipality's infrastructure. 
> 
> For the sake of its future New York City needs a clear 
> broadband policy NOW.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> --- "Schainbaum, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a 
> > franchise and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the 
> problem with
> > monopoly? 
> > Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's the
> > problem 
> > with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. 
> First, an 
> > ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least the belief
> > of 
> > some people in some economics depts. Second, competition 
> for grant of
> > 
> > the monopoly through use of influence with the local government, 
> > whether that be a municipal or a state government, just 
> seems to lead 
> > to obviously sub-optimal outcomes.
> > 
> > Jim Henry wrote:
> > 
> > >Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away.  
> Due to the
> > ILECs
> > >entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to
> > have to
> > >jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to.
> > They've
> > >already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a company 
> can apply
> > for a
> > >state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a franchise with
> > each
> > >municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for
> > the
> > >munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or 
> discount in
> > return
> > >for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm
> > sure the
> > >cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this to change
> > for
> > >Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and not have a level playing field so
> > they
> > >will do their utmost to be included in these changes or get the law
> > changed
> > >back so that the ILECs must compete with  the same rules. Jim
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >>-Original Message-
> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > >>Of Schainbaum, Robert
> > >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM
> > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> > >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have t

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Robert,
   Govt. video franchises are not always monopolies. That depends on the
municipality or govt. entity granting it. In the case of the Texas
state-wide franchise it is not. In the community where I live, two cable
companies, RCN and Comcast, have franchises so I have my choice. For
broadband I have even more choices if I opt to go for DSL or FTTH.  Where I
am moving in about 6 months, about 40 miles from here, again, I will have my
choice of Comcast,Service Electric, or Verizon for video, broadband and
voice, plus numerous DSL resellers if I want it.  I know in the past in some
communities municipalities would offer monopolies because they could extort
more out of the MSO but I do not think that is legal anymore, at least not
in PA.

Jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Schainbaum, Robert
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a 
> franchise 
> and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the problem with 
> monopoly? 
> Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's 
> the problem 
> with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. First, an 
> ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least the 
> belief of 
> some people in some economics depts. Second, competition for grant of 
> the monopoly through use of influence with the local 
> government, whether 
> that be a municipal or a state government, just seems to lead to 
> obviously sub-optimal outcomes.
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away.  Due to the 
> >ILECs entering the video market they are trying their very 
> best NOT to 
> >have to jump through all the hoops the cable company's were 
> forced to.  
> >They've already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a 
> company can 
> >apply for a state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a 
> >franchise with each municipality. Since municipal video 
> franchises were 
> >just a way for the munipalities to extort all kinds of services for 
> >free or discount in return for the franchise, this should be 
> at least 
> >some improvement. I'm sure the cable company's are not going to sit 
> >still and allow this to change for Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and 
> >not have a level playing field so they will do their utmost to be 
> >included in these changes or get the law changed back so 
> that the ILECs 
> >must compete with  the same rules. Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Schainbaum, Robert
> >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM
> >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>
> >>Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far
> >>superior quality 
> >>of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion 
> >>of providing 
> >>a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely 
> >>broken down in 
> >>the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the 
> >>underylying 
> >>theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy. 
> >>It seems a 
> >>failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private 
> >>solutions 
> >>to telecommunications problems in the US or through the 
> >>private economy 
> >>usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local 
> >>franchise. I don't 
> >>see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise. 
> >>I'm tired of 
> >>any reflex response that fails to take account of our 
> >>surpassing failure 
> >>in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure.
> >>
> >>Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Lars,
> >>>   Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>mis-understood.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber build with tax
> >>>dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is 
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>necessary in
> >>
> >>
> >>>order to support and maintain the fiber network, t

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away.  Due to the ILECs
entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to have to
jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to.  They've
already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a company can apply for a
state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a franchise with each
municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for the
munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or discount in return
for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm sure the
cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this to change for
Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and not have a level playing field so they
will do their utmost to be included in these changes or get the law changed
back so that the ILECs must compete with  the same rules.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Schainbaum, Robert
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far 
> superior quality 
> of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion 
> of providing 
> a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely 
> broken down in 
> the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the 
> underylying 
> theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy. 
> It seems a 
> failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private 
> solutions 
> to telecommunications problems in the US or through the 
> private economy 
> usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local 
> franchise. I don't 
> see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise. 
> I'm tired of 
> any reflex response that fails to take account of our 
> surpassing failure 
> in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure.
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >Lars,
> > Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have 
> mis-understood. 
> >If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber build with tax 
> >dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is 
> necessary in 
> >order to support and maintain the fiber network, then there 
> is none. I 
> >do feel it would be much better, more efficient, and more 
> economical to 
> >have the network operated and maintained by a commercial enterprise 
> >than a government entity. As to the cost of your Internet 
> connection, 
> >it sounds like a good deal to me and I did not want to imply 
> otherwise. 
> >Jim
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-----
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Lars Aronsson
> >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM
> >>To: 'nycwireless'
> >>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'd be willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and your 
> >>>fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as 
> part of that 
> >>>$40/month.
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay down their own
> >>cables?  How does that work in this era of telecom deregulation? 
> >>Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal monopoly, 
> >>it makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal 
> >>fiber infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or 
> >>bandwidth at or near cost price.
> >>
> >>My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using the municipal
> >>fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month.  I don't see where 
> >>any subsidy would come in.
> >>
> >>You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax, and I'm not
> >>defending that.  I'm just curious how you could help me to find a 
> >>more efficient broadband solution than the one I already 
> >>have. Where and how do you live and what do you pay for broadband?
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>  Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> >>  Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> >>--
> >>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >>Un/Subscribe: 
> >>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >&g

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Lars,
Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have mis-understood.
If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber build with tax dollars,
and is making a profit on the network, which is necessary in order to
support and maintain the fiber network, then there is none. I do feel it
would be much better, more efficient, and more economical to have the
network operated and maintained by a commercial enterprise than a government
entity. As to the cost of your Internet connection, it sounds like a good
deal to me and I did not want to imply otherwise.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Lars Aronsson
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM
> To: 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > I'd be willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and
> > your fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as 
> > part of that $40/month.
> 
> Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay down their own 
> cables?  How does that work in this era of telecom deregulation? 
> Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal monopoly, 
> it makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal 
> fiber infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or 
> bandwidth at or near cost price.
> 
> My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using the municipal 
> fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month.  I don't see where 
> any subsidy would come in.
> 
> You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax, and I'm not 
> defending that.  I'm just curious how you could help me to find a 
> more efficient broadband solution than the one I already 
> have. Where and how do you live and what do you pay for broadband?
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Rob,
   And as my tax dollars won't be funding what you do in NYC, as long as you
don't snare any federal funds, I have absolutley no objection to it!  I
merely wanted to correct the misunderstanding about broadband being cheaper
elsewhere than in the U.S.  It's not.  Don't forget, it's capitalism that
made this nation the greatest in the world, and in fact it's capitalism that
makes all these neat wireless gadgets that we love so, possible!  I doubt
that even our socialist European neighbors, or the Asians who produce most
of the wireless gear, would make it at all if there were not big money in
it.
WRT my statement that taxation is theft, if I told you to give me
several thousand dollars or I would come and get you, you would probably
laugh it off, even if I promised to use the money for "a good purpose".
However, once you heard that I had done just that to hundreds or thousands
of people, that those people are now in prison because they would not give
me their money, that they are going to STAY in prison, and that the highest
legal authority in the land had confirmed that it's ok for me to do that, I
bet you would give me some money the next time I asked.  You may feel it's
all ok, but if I were in your shoes I would feel I've been robbed. Yes,
taxation is theft. When someone works hard to become a success, it's immoral
to take their money by threat of force to give it to someone who didn't earn
it.  We've gotten way off track in the last hundred years and are using
forced wealth redistribution to fill society's needs that have always been
served by charity and church.  
Anyway we're getting off topic. I only wanted to correct the
misunderstanding that broadband is cheaper elsewhere than in the U.S. and
since then I've only responded to related points made by others. I really
want to stay on topic if possible.

Jim



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:50 PM
> To: 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Jim:
> 
> Maybe in airpower's home of Lansdowne, PA, people think 
> "taxation is theft" (though I doubt it).  
> 
> Here in NYC, as in NYCwireless, people put up with some of 
> the highest income tax rates in the country.  Why?  Because 
> we believe in the city, the urban environment, and communal 
> services.  Tax-ranting is really out of place. 
> 
> If you want low taxes, try Alaska.  If we want to have 
> community access in NYC, we need to focus on the real value 
> it can provide as a communal service and figure out how to 
> make it happen.
>  
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --- Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Lars,
> > I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but 
> you've got to 
> > draw the line somewhere. I certainly don't want my tax 
> dollars paying 
> > for soeone
> > else's water, electricity, gas, medicine, education, 
> healthcare, etc.
> > As to
> > the  cost of your broadband connection, I'd be willing to 
> bet you are
> > not
> > counting the taxes you and your fellow subjects pay for that
> > municipal fiber
> > network as part of that $40/month.  Beyond that, I'd also  bet you
> > pay a
> > much larger percentage of your income in taxes than I, though mine
> > are
> > already far too high. Taxation is theft and thus immoral.
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > > Of Lars Aronsson
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
> > > To: 'nycwireless'
> > > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jim Henry wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries where 
> > > > broadband is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it 
> > > > really cheaper or is it subsidized by the government? I 
> honestly 
> > > > don't know the answer.  I would like it to be cheaper here also 
> > > > and more widespread, but not at the expense of free enterprise.
> > > > If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
> > > 
> > > I heard that socialism has gone away now that "cialis" is caught
> > > in the spam filters.  Seriously, though, I have yet to see street 
> > > lights operated on a pay-per-view commercial basis.  
> Somebody paid 

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Ben,
   You make some good point. However in reference to Philly Muni Wireless,
it's not built yet so let's wait and see before we pronounce it a success.
All terms of the contract have not even been finalized. In Philly they have
only now just realized that many of the folks that they want to bring low
cost Internet to, don't have computers! So now they are talking of providing
"free" computers to thousands of families.  I'm not yet certain who will be
buying those, Earthlink, the city of Philadelphia, the state, or the Feds,
but one thing I am certain of is that they will not be free. At somepoint in
the future they will discover that many of these folks don't even have an
interest in learning how to use a computer, just as many people now have no
interest in reading newspapers or using their public libraries.  Internet
for the masses is not the cure-all that many tout it to be. 
One other city that has a RFP out for a muni wireless network has a
much better philosophy.  They feel that pervasive wireless broadband
throughout their city will be a great thing, and who can argue that?  BUT,
they have no intention of subsidizing the price of service.  They want the
network to generate the necessary funds to maintain it, upgrade it, etc.
They accurately point out that already, anyone in their city already has
Internet access at no charge (beyond the taxes they already pay) by visiting
one of the dozens of public libraries they provide their citizens.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Ben N. Serebin
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:44 PM
> To: nycwireless
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
>   Having read the article, this is not about higher taxes 
> guys... It's about competition. Free market competition, 
> which isn't occurring in the broadband market in the US. This 
> also isn't about fast internet for the 1%, like me who has 
> fiber in Westchester that is 5Mb/2Mb for $35/month. This is 
> going to be a bigger problem, much BIGGER. Such as if the 
> internet was developed and fostered in Asia/Europe. We need 
> to keep the USA competitive, hence the purpose of getting 
> fast broadband to all. The internet is going to grow the 
> economy through online business and education.
> 
>   Question for all you folks... how much $$$ was used for 
> the Philly Muni Wireless? A big fat $0 Read the article, 
> before you post about taxes & muni wireless. Also, here's 
> another good blurb from the article...
> 
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
> 
> Community Internet has the potential to revolutionize and 
> democratize communications in this country. And that may be 
> the reason why big cable and telephone companies and their 
> political allies have launched a sophisticated misinformation 
> campaign. These companies and their coin-operated think tanks 
> generally make three paradoxical arguments against municipal 
> broadband. First, they contend that municipalities have no 
> place in the "free market." Of course, the cable and 
> telephone giants don't mention that their own 
> monopolies-which control 98 percent of the broadband 
> market-have been cemented with extensive public subsidies, 
> tax breaks and incentives (as well as free rein to tear up 
> city streets). Verizon, for instance, didn't complain last 
> fall when Pennsylvania handed them subsidies for broadband 
> deployment worth nearly 10 times what Wireless Philadelphia 
> will cost. Neither did Comcast object when Philadelphia 
> approved a $30 million grant to build a skyscraper that will 
> house its headquarters. To the incumbent providers, "unfair 
> competition" means any competition at all.
> 
> -Ben
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Larry,
We're getting way off topic now. We could go on and on, but before
someone rightfully objects, I just wanted to address the point that
broadband is NOT cheaper elsewhere than it is in the U.S. BTW, little in
this world is free. The healthcare of government employees certainly is not.
Taking money from someone with an implied threat of force (if you do not pay
your taxes the govt. will send men with guns to come get you and put you in
prison) is robbery. It's theft. It's immoral. 
Point made. 

> -Original Message-
> From: MAX Wireless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Lars Aronsson'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> I think you might have been drinking too much of the 
> right-wing Kool-aid. This country was formed for the "Common 
> Good" of the people.
> 
> Our friends in Europe understand that principle, and while 
> their taxes are higher, they receive many more services than 
> we do for our tax money.  I don't mind paying my share of the 
> tax load, but I don't like what the money is used for.  We 
> subsidize government employees with free health care, so why 
> shouldn't the rest of the population be afforded the same 
> service.  Our European friends don't spend near the money on 
> the military that we do and can use that money to provide for 
> a better quality of life for ALL their citizens rather than 
> blowing holes in the sand of some foreign country in support 
> of the American oil companies.
> 
> Jim, think "Common Good".
> 
> Larry
> 
> 
> "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, 
> every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from 
> those who are hungry and are not fed, those that are cold and 
> are not clothed." Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Jim Henry
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: 'Lars Aronsson'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> Lars,
> I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but 
> you've got to draw the line somewhere. I certainly don't want 
> my tax dollars paying for soeone else's water, electricity, 
> gas, medicine, education, healthcare, etc. As to the  cost of 
> your broadband connection, I'd be willing to bet you are not 
> counting the taxes you and your fellow subjects pay for that 
> municipal fiber network as part of that $40/month.  Beyond 
> that, I'd also  bet you pay a much larger percentage of your 
> income in taxes than I, though mine are already far too high. 
> Taxation is theft and thus immoral.
> 
> Jim
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > Of Lars Aronsson
> > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
> > To: 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > 
> > Jim Henry wrote:
> > 
> > > Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries 
> where broadband 
> > > is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it really 
> cheaper or 
> > > is it subsidized by the government? I honestly don't know the 
> > > answer.  I would like it to be cheaper here also and more 
> > > widespread, but not at the expense of free enterprise.
> > > If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

I know I do, and I object.  I said that I do not WANT to.  The great people
who founded this country never envisioned nor intended that the govt. would
be our mommy. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 12:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Lars Aronsson'
> Cc: 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> "I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for so[m]eone 
> else's water, electricity, gas, medicine, education, 
> healthcare, etc." 
> 
> Where do you live? If it's the US, you already do pay for 
> these products and services for others in all sorts of places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Jim Henry
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 11:06 AM
> To: 'Lars Aronsson'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> Lars,
> I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but 
> you've got to draw the line somewhere. I certainly don't want 
> my tax dollars paying for soeone else's water, electricity, 
> gas, medicine, education, healthcare, etc. As to the  cost of 
> your broadband connection, I'd be willing to bet you are not 
> counting the taxes you and your fellow subjects pay for that 
> municipal fiber network as part of that $40/month.  Beyond 
> that, I'd also  bet you pay a much larger percentage of your 
> income in taxes than I, though mine are already far too high. 
> Taxation is theft and thus immoral.
> 
> Jim
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars
> > Aronsson
> > Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
> > To: 'nycwireless'
> > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > 
> > Jim Henry wrote:
> > 
> > > Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries 
> where broadband
> > > is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it really 
> cheaper or 
> > > is it subsidized by the government? I honestly don't know the 
> > > answer.  I would like it to be cheaper here also and more 
> > > widespread, but not at the expense of free enterprise.
> > > If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
> > 
> > I heard that socialism has gone away now that "cialis" is caught in
> > the spam filters.  Seriously, though, I have yet to see 
> street lights 
> > operated on a pay-per-view commercial basis.  Somebody paid 
> > once-and-for-all to pave and light the streets, and it could be tax 
> > money.  Does that make it socialism?
> > 
> > In Sweden I pay 320 SEK/mo ($40) for 10 Mbit/s.  This is possible
> > because I live in a coop apartment building, where every 
> apartment is 
> > wired by an ISP, and the in-house switched LAN is connected to a 
> > municipal fiber in the basement. This ISP (www.bredband.com) was 
> > founded with venture capital during the dotcom boom and got 
> a contract 
> > with the largest national association of apartment coops 
> (www.hsb.se).  
> > Through this contract, apartment coops that are members have a very 
> > streamlined procedure for signing up to get their apartment 
> buildings 
> > wired.
> > 
> > This spring, the ISP is introducing a reduced price 2 
> Mbit/s offering
> > (still over CAT-5 twisted pair ethernet, so I guess it is really 10 
> > Mbit/s but bandwidth limited) and at the same time my line 
> is upgraded 
> > to 100 Mbit/s at unchanged price.
> > 
> > As far as I know, there is no direct government subsidy, 
> but a lot of
> > factors work together:
> > 
> >  * Compared to the U.S., more people here live in apartments.  
> >People living in private homes cannot get broadband as cheap, 
> >simply because wiring a dozen apartments in one building is a 
> >lot cheaper than wiring a dozen private homes.
> > 
> >  * Coops is a very common form of apartment ownership in Sweden 
> >since the 1930s, and the national associations work pretty 
> >well.  The nationwide template contract made it easier for a 
> >lot of small coops to sign up, who don't have the technical 
> >insights to do their own negotiations.
> > 
> >  * The dotcom boom provided the venture capital for this 
> >broadband-only ISP.  You could call this "subsidized by stupid 
> >investors

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Lars,
I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but you've got to draw
the line somewhere. I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for soeone
else's water, electricity, gas, medicine, education, healthcare, etc. As to
the  cost of your broadband connection, I'd be willing to bet you are not
counting the taxes you and your fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber
network as part of that $40/month.  Beyond that, I'd also  bet you pay a
much larger percentage of your income in taxes than I, though mine are
already far too high. Taxation is theft and thus immoral.

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Lars Aronsson
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
> To: 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries where
> > broadband is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it 
> > really cheaper or is it subsidized by the government? I honestly 
> > don't know the answer.  I would like it to be cheaper here also 
> > and more widespread, but not at the expense of free enterprise.  
> > If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
> 
> I heard that socialism has gone away now that "cialis" is caught 
> in the spam filters.  Seriously, though, I have yet to see street 
> lights operated on a pay-per-view commercial basis.  Somebody paid 
> once-and-for-all to pave and light the streets, and it could be 
> tax money.  Does that make it socialism?
> 
> In Sweden I pay 320 SEK/mo ($40) for 10 Mbit/s.  This is possible 
> because I live in a coop apartment building, where every apartment 
> is wired by an ISP, and the in-house switched LAN is connected to 
> a municipal fiber in the basement. This ISP (www.bredband.com) was 
> founded with venture capital during the dotcom boom and got a 
> contract with the largest national association of apartment coops 
> (www.hsb.se).  Through this contract, apartment coops that are 
> members have a very streamlined procedure for signing up to get 
> their apartment buildings wired.
> 
> This spring, the ISP is introducing a reduced price 2 Mbit/s 
> offering (still over CAT-5 twisted pair ethernet, so I guess it is 
> really 10 Mbit/s but bandwidth limited) and at the same time my 
> line is upgraded to 100 Mbit/s at unchanged price.
> 
> As far as I know, there is no direct government subsidy, but a lot 
> of factors work together:
> 
>  * Compared to the U.S., more people here live in apartments.  
>People living in private homes cannot get broadband as cheap, 
>simply because wiring a dozen apartments in one building is a 
>lot cheaper than wiring a dozen private homes.
> 
>  * Coops is a very common form of apartment ownership in Sweden 
>since the 1930s, and the national associations work pretty 
>well.  The nationwide template contract made it easier for a 
>lot of small coops to sign up, who don't have the technical 
>insights to do their own negotiations.
> 
>  * The dotcom boom provided the venture capital for this 
>broadband-only ISP.  You could call this "subsidized by stupid 
>investors".  I guess the stock price has fallen, but at least 
>this company is still around.
> 
>  * The old national telco is not involved at all in this solution.
> 
>  * The ISP rents dark fiber from the municipal utility between my 
>building and the ISP's facility in this town.  The municipal 
>water, sewer, electricity, and heating utility is operated as a 
>whole-owned corporation (www.tekniskaverken.se) and I don't 
>know exactly how they have financed the build-out of the 
>municipal fiber network.
> 
> I guess most of these conditions could also apply to New York 
> City, more than to rural or suburban America.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

You're kidding, right? ;-)

> -Original Message-
> From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:08 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> "...we have the strongest economy in the world"... 
> 
> Where do you live?? 
> 
> Certainly not here.
> 
> Bruce 
> 
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Jim Henry
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:20 PM
> To: 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless'
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No thanks 
> to govt. subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a 
> socialist load on our economy.  The fact that we have less 
> socialism than most other countries is probably the main 
> reason that we have the strongest economy in the world,
> the envy of other nations.   Just my two cents.
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Dustin
> > Goodwin
> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> > To: nycwireless
> > Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > 
> > 
> > If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or 
> why not of
> > the municipal broadband debate you must read this article.
> > Some of the conclusions:
> > The US is desperately behind in broaband compared to the rest the 
> > world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying way too 
> much for way 
> > too little compared to the rest of the world.
> > US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and slowed 
> > investment. Lack of Federal and State policy/programs/tax 
> > breaks/incentives are mostly to blame.
> > As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> > enterprise is not the best system for bringing real low 
> cost broadband 
> > to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the 
> broadband 
> > grid and your expecting help from private telcos... your screwed.
> > Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has been 
> > shown to encourage private sector investment.
> > Most places including NYC should be shopping around for a municipal 
> > broadband solution if they expect their businesses to compete on a 
> > global level.
> > The US communication infrastructure is stagnating and the 
> fixes will 
> > come from a combination public policy *AND* private enterprise.
> > 
> > *Let There Be Wi-Fi*
> > Broadband is the electricity of the 21st century-and much of America
> > is being left in the dark.
> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
> > --
> > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > Un/Subscribe: 
> > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release
> > Date: 1/5/2006
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No thanks to govt.
subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a socialist load on our
economy.  The fact that we have less socialism than most other countries is
probably the main reason that we have the strongest economy in the world,
the envy of other nations.   Just my two cents.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: nycwireless
> Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or 
> why not of 
> the municipal broadband debate you must read this article.
> Some of the conclusions:
> The US is desperately behind in broaband compared to the rest 
> the world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying way too 
> much for way too 
> little compared to the rest of the world.
> US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and 
> slowed investment. Lack of Federal and State 
> policy/programs/tax breaks/incentives are 
> mostly to blame.
> As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> enterprise 
> is not the best system for bringing real low cost broadband 
> to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the 
> broadband grid and your 
> expecting help from private telcos... your screwed.
> Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has 
> been shown 
> to encourage private sector investment.
> Most places including NYC should be shopping around for a municipal 
> broadband solution if they expect their businesses to compete on a 
> global level.
> The US communication infrastructure is stagnating and the fixes will 
> come from a combination public policy *AND* private enterprise.
> 
> *Let There Be Wi-Fi*
> Broadband is the electricity of the 21st century-and much of 
> America is 
> being left in the dark. 
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Jim Henry]

Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries where broadband is
cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it really cheaper or is it
subsidized by the government? I honestly don't know the answer.  I would
like it to be cheaper here also and more widespread, but not at the expense
of free enterprise.  If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want
it. 
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: nycwireless
> Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> 
> 
> If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or 
> why not of 
> the municipal broadband debate you must read this article.
> Some of the conclusions:
> The US is desperately behind in broaband compared to the rest 
> the world. As for existing US broadband.We are paying way too 
> much for way too 
> little compared to the rest of the world.
> US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and 
> slowed investment. Lack of Federal and State 
> policy/programs/tax breaks/incentives are 
> mostly to blame.
> As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free 
> enterprise 
> is not the best system for bringing real low cost broadband 
> to everyone. If your municipality really wants to be on the 
> broadband grid and your 
> expecting help from private telcos... your screwed.
> Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has 
> been shown 
> to encourage private sector investment.
> Most places including NYC should be shopping around for a municipal 
> broadband solution if they expect their businesses to compete on a 
> global level.
> The US communication infrastructure is stagnating and the fixes will 
> come from a combination public policy *AND* private enterprise.
> 
> *Let There Be Wi-Fi*
> Broadband is the electricity of the 21st century-and much of 
> America is 
> being left in the dark. 
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
> Date: 1/5/2006
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] FW: OpinionJournal Article: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

[Jim Henry]

It's not just SBC that is out to change the net, as you can see. 
 
 
  WSJ.com 
OpinionJournal

Your friend Leroy Pyle thought you might be interested in this article
  from OpinionJournal
  and forwarded it to you. 

EDITORIAL BOARD

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

Should the U.S. or the U.N. control the Internet? Here's a third way.

BY BRIAN M. CARNEY

It's been a good ride, this whole Internet thing. To hear its boosters tell
it, the Net has, in addition to the porn, online poker and cheap drugs,
given us democratized information, become a tool for the undermining of
totalitarian regimes and given people in the farthest corners of the Earth a
window on the wider world that would have been unthinkable before Al Gore
invented the Internet (sic).

But all that is about to change--starting tomorrow. The bad news is that we
can't really do anything about it. The good news is that the changes that
are coming probably won't bring about the end of the Information Age, but
merely its evolution. 


Before we get to that, you're probably wondering what in the world is going
on--surely if the whole Internet thing had been called off, there would have
been a press release, right? Well, there was, but you may not have noticed.
Tomorrow, in Tunis, Tunisia, the U.N. is hosting the World Summit on the
Information Society. One of the goals of the summit is to advance the
"internationalization" of what is known as "Internet governance." 



   


Since its inception, the Internet has been a pretty American affair. Many
fundamental aspects of its architecture are controlled by a California-based
nonprofit corporation known as Icann, short for Internet Corp. for Assigned
Names and Numbers. Icann was founded by the U.S. government and, many
believe, is still controlled by it to some extent. For a lot of different
reasons, that makes a lot of people mad. So, for several years now, the
U.N., through events like tomorrow's summit, has been urging the U.S. to
give control of Icann--or more precisely, of the root file that maps every
Internet address and connects them to the names, like OpinionJournal.com,
that we are all familiar with--to the U.N.'s wise stewardship. 

   The U.S. hates the idea,
with good reason. An Internet "governed" by the U.N. could be expected to
travel a familiar road. The countries with the greatest interest in
regulating, limiting or controlling the Net would pull out the stops to put
themselves on the governing board, and then use the U.N.'s imprimatur to
justify the shackling of a once (more or less) free medium in the interests
of cultural diversity, or "Asian values" or some other bromide. 


That the Saudi Arabias, Chinas and Frances of the world would love to impose
their own particular vision of what should and should not be available on
the Internet should surprise no one. All the countries above have restricted
or attempted to restrict Internet access. America, for its part, has engaged
in aggressive enforcement against offshore gambling sites that are
accessible from the U.S. 


The U.S. is making apocalyptic predictions of what the U.N. would do if
given control. Those predictions are probably optimistic; U.N. control would
be a disaster. But there is a third way, as Mr. Gore might say. That
alternative doesn't serve the interests of either the U.S. government, which
enjoys the control it currently exercises, or its critics, who would much
prefer to do their censoring under a multilateral umbrella. But if the U.S.
continues its Internet brinkmanship, the third way will become not only
likely, but inevitable. 


That alternative is a fragmented Internet, without a single "root file" that
describes the locations of everything on the Net. The U.S. government has
led many to believe that this is equivalent to dismantling the Internet
itself. But it is bluffing. 



   


Here's how it might work. At some point, China will grow tired of the U.S.
refusal to give up control to the U.N., and it will secede from the status
quo. It will set up its own root server, tweaked to allow access only to
those sites the government deems nonthreatening, and simply order every
Internet service provider in the country to use it instead of Icann's. The
change will be seamless to most users, but China will have set up its own
private Net, one answerable to the people's revolutionaries rather than to
the U.S. Commerce Department. 

Others may follow suit. Root servers could spring up in France, or Cuba, or
Iran. In time, the Internet might look less like the Internet and more like,
say, the phone system, where there is no "controlling legal authority" on
the international level. More liberal-minded countries would prob

RE: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBCchief

[Jim Henry]

No. It's all dependent on the providers terms of service, which defines what
you are buying and paying for. You have the option of not buying if you
don't agree.  For example, suppose I want to buy an internet connection to
send unsolicited commercial email in mass mailings to millions of people? Do
you think that will be tolerated for long?  Suppose I wish to host a porn
web site on my connection? In each of these cases I will be in violation of
most providers' TOS.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Christopher Mc Carthy
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from the SBCchief
> 
> 
> Or put another way - what if the cable company has their own 
> search page
> - but you want to use Google.  Should you have to pay to use that?
> 
> Or your favourite news site?  
> 
> I always thought you were paying for a  connection to the 
> net, and for a certain amount of bandwidth capacity.  What 
> you do with it (surfing,
> VoIP) is up to you isn't it?
> 
> Christopher MC CARTHY
> Technical Communicator
> CertEx
> GL TRADE Headquarters
> 42 Rue Notre Dame des Victoires
> F-75002 Paris
> +33 1 53 40 00 00 (switchboard)
> +33 1 53 40 01 16 (direct line)
> www.gltrade.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 00:38:40 -0500
> From: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from
>   the SBC chief
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;   delsp=yes;
> format=flowed
> 
> Jim,
> 
> What makes VoIP so special?
> 
> Certainly, if SBC provides VoIP, they should make an attractive  
> package for their customers. But in the end, their subscribers are  
> just buying bandwidth in bulk month over month. What gives SBC the  
> right to treat one IP based service in particular as special? 
> Its all  
> just IP packets. And what gives SBC the right to inspect these  
> packets at their discretion?
> 
> This would be like your bank or credit card company inquiring about  
> what you are purchasing with your money, and furthermore telling you  
> that you can't purchase other financial services with your money  
> because they already provide them.
> 
> What if you want to use a VoIP provider that emails you your  
> voicemails, while SBC makes you dial in via your home phone only to  
> get them? Shouldn't you have the right to choose what service you  
> want to use?
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > I can certainly agreee with  not allowing other voip providers to
> > traverse
> > your network at no charge, especially if your company provides voice
> > services. To a lesser extent I can agree with restricting anything  
> > you wish
> > as long as you put it in your Terms of Service ahead of time.  
> > However, I
> > don't think the latter strategy will survive in a free 
> market. If this
> > fellow actually said he wants to charge for every web page view  
> > that travels
> > SBC's network then I think he is being irrational and will not  
> > succeed at
> > it.
> > Jim
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:43 AM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Cc: 'Dustin Goodwin'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from 
> >> the SBC chief
> >>
> >>
> >> We should be clear about this.
> >>
> >> What Mr. Witacre is intending is not just to charge you 
> and me (which
> >> he already does), but to charge each and every single company that
> >> provides us a web page.
> >>
> >> Frankly, I think he's smoking something. In addition to being 
> >> impossible to manage such a scheme from a contract and 
> payment point 
> >> of view, the only way to maintain it is to collude with the other 
> >> backbone providers.
> >>
> >> This is not to say he won't try, nor that we aren't moving 
> >> da

RE: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Jim Henry]

I can certainly agreee with  not allowing other voip providers to traverse
your network at no charge, especially if your company provides voice
services. To a lesser extent I can agree with restricting anything you wish
as long as you put it in your Terms of Service ahead of time. However, I
don't think the latter strategy will survive in a free market. If this
fellow actually said he wants to charge for every web page view that travels
SBC's network then I think he is being irrational and will not succeed at
it.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: 'Dustin Goodwin'; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from the SBC chief
> 
> 
> We should be clear about this.
> 
> What Mr. Witacre is intending is not just to charge you and 
> me (which  
> he already does), but to charge each and every single company that  
> provides us a web page.
> 
> Frankly, I think he's smoking something. In addition to being  
> impossible to manage such a scheme from a contract and payment point  
> of view, the only way to maintain it is to collude with the other  
> backbone providers.
> 
> This is not to say he won't try, nor that we aren't moving  
> dangerously close to monopoly power with broadband--both cable/dsl  
> and backbone (we have been racing towards this for some time now).
> 
> What Dustin is suggesting is to head this off at the pass. 
> Instead of  
> just ignoring this lunatic (Mr. Witacre), we should use this as a  
> rallying cry to ensure that the foundations of the 
> Internet--and this  
> _is_ about SBC trying to change the fundamental operations of the  
> Internet--remain uncorrupted by corporate greed and monopolistic  
> practices.
> 
> Dana Spiegel
> Executive Director
> NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NYCwireless.net
> +1 917 402 0422
> 
> Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info
> 
> 
> On Oct 31, 2005, at 8:02 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> > Well, me too, but I'm willing to pay for something better than AOL.
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> >> Dustin Goodwin
> >> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:40 PM
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from 
> >> the SBC chief
> >>
> >>
> >> Just go ahead and turn the Internet off if you can only 
> connect me to 
> >> the AOLized version of it.
> >>
> >> - Dustin -
> >>
> >> Jim Henry wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can't argue with that. They invest hundreds of millions
> >> of dollars
> >>> in transport and need to get their ROI.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> >>>> Dustin Goodwin
> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:40 PM
> >>>> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>>> Subject: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from the 
> >>>> SBC chief
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Please never tell me again there is no need for an 
> alternative to 
> >>>> the Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /
> >>>>
> >>>> "If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back 
> >>>> <http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/1635247&tid=
> >> 215>, SBC
> >>>> CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview 
> >>>> <http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/conte
> >>>> nt/05_45/b3958092.htm>
> >>>> with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage
> >> and other
> >>>> Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style:
> >> 'How do you
> >>>> think they're going to get to customers? Through a 
> broadband pipe. 
> >>>> Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like
> >>>> to do is use
> >>>> my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that
> >> because we have
> >>>> spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. 
> So there's 
>

RE: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Jim Henry]

Well, me too, but I'm willing to pay for something better than AOL.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 7:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read 
> this from the SBC chief
> 
> 
> Just go ahead and turn the Internet off if you can only connect me to 
> the AOLized version of it.
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> Jim Henry wrote:
> 
> >You can't argue with that. They invest hundreds of millions 
> of dollars 
> >in transport and need to get their ROI.
> >
> >  
> >
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> >>Of Dustin Goodwin
> >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:40 PM
> >>To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> >>Subject: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this 
> >>from the SBC chief
> >>
> >>
> >>Please never tell me again there is no need for an
> >>alternative to the  
> >>Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /
> >>
> >>"If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back
> >><http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/1635247&tid=
> 215>, SBC 
> >>CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview 
> >><http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/conte
> >>nt/05_45/b3958092.htm> 
> >>with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage 
> and other 
> >>Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: 
> 'How do you 
> >>think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband 
> >>pipe. Cable 
> >>companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like 
> >>to do is use 
> >>my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that 
> because we have 
> >>spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So 
> >>there's going 
> >>to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these 
> >>pipes to pay 
> >>for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my 
> >>pipes?'."
> >>
> >>- Dustin -
> >>
> >>/
> >>--
> >>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> >>Un/Subscribe:
> >>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>No virus found in this incoming message.
> >>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release 
> >>Date: 10/31/2005
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release 
> Date: 10/31/2005
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Jim Henry]

You can't argue with that. They invest hundreds of millions of dollars in
transport and need to get their ROI.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Dustin Goodwin
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:40 PM
> To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this 
> from the SBC chief
> 
> 
> Please never tell me again there is no need for an 
> alternative to the  
> Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /
> 
> "If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back 
> , SBC 
> CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview 
>  nt/05_45/b3958092.htm> 
> with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage and other 
> Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: 'How do you 
> think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband 
> pipe. Cable 
> companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like 
> to do is use 
> my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have 
> spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So 
> there's going 
> to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these 
> pipes to pay 
> for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my 
> pipes?'."
> 
> - Dustin -
> 
> /
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe: 
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release 
> Date: 10/31/2005
> 
> 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement

[Jim Henry]

Or if we could ban guns we might prevent many of the 8-9,000 homicides per
year...but then we'd lose the benefit of the 2,000,000 crimes prevented per
year in this country by privately owned firearms.  Most everything has both
risks and benefits to be weighed, even bathtubs, which kill 1200 children a
year in the U.S.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lee
> Barken
> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: John Geraci
> Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement
>
>
> hi John,
>Our view at SoCalFreeNet.org is that the benefit outweighs
> the risk.
> Every tool that can be used for good has the potential to be used in a
> negative way.  We could ban cars and save 50,000 lives a year-- but we
> don't because the automobile has enormous utility... just like the
> Internet.  So our role as the enabler of the technology is to
> implement
> guard rails and air bags and take reasonable steps to promote
> everybody's
> safety.
>
> Take it easy,
>-Lee
> President, SoCalFreNet.org
>
>
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, John Geraci wrote:
>
> > I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page
> article in
> > the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi
> open with
> > helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and
> maybe even
> > terrorists).  It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and
> > reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John
> Ashcroft's point
> > of view that we should all submit willingly to government
> surveillance.
> >   Still, I think the groups and people that support free
> wifi have to
> > have a good rebuttal to the argument that was made, and not just
> > dismiss it.
> >
> > I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now
> >
(http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your-wireless-
> network-036577.php).  They recommend that their readers 1. set up WEP
> on their router  2. create an access list of what computers can access
> the Internet  3. turn off their SSID broadcast.  Granted, everyone
> should know how to lock down their router, but it seems that the press
> is going farther, making it your civic duty to close off your Internet
> access.  What is the free wifi movement's response?  Maybe it's just a
> good counter argument.  Maybe it's developing new tools that allow
> users to easily find some sort of middle ground between fully open wifi
> and fully closed wifi.  Not sure, but I think there should be some sort
> of response.
>
> -John
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Wireless Internet Wifi Hotspot - Worth it?

[Jim Henry]

Just looks like a Linksys wireless unit to me.  I don't think you will make
a living with hotspots but you might get SOME revenue.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Robert Kim, Wireless Internet Consultant
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:58 PM
> To: Nyc Listserve; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 5220
> Subject: [nycwireless] Wireless Internet Wifi Hotspot - Worth it?
>
>
> Hi.. Im new here...
> I am thinking about signing up with Boingo as a reseller. Anyone have
> experience with them?
> Are they worth the time it takes to sign up... ???
>
> In all fairness..
> I am planning to deploy a wide area wifi hotspot cloud right in
> restraunt row in cardiff ca... And its on Coast Highway 101...
>
> BUT.. They only pay $20 per signup and $1 per hop on user...
>
> So.. Is it worth it?
> Remember... My coverage will be expanded to cover more land...
> https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-hotspot-router-supercharged-e
> xtended-ra
> nge-coverage.html
>
> Is the router I am using.
>
>
>  X
>
> Robert Kim, Wireless Internet Consultant,
> Wifi Hotspot Consultant
> Verizon Wireless Agent (TM)
> http://EVDO-Coverage.com
> 2611 S Pacific Coast Highway 101
> Cardiff by the Sea CA 92007
> 206 984 0880
>
> "Internet Service Is ONLY Broadband with Broadband Customer
> Service"(tm)
> OUR QUEST: To Kill the Cubicle! (SM)
>
> ---Shalo---
> ;-)
>
> Forum:
> http://secrets.wireless-internet-coverage.com/
> Phones:
> http://video-phones-evdo.com
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005
>
>
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.6 - Release Date: 2/7/2005

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] FW: [Wi-Fi Net News] Kill Phil(ly)

[Jim Henry]

I'd like to see these markets open to all WISPs or ISPs on a free makrket
basis.If a city wants to build the infra structure, whiLe I wouldn't
recommend itm no big deal as long as it pays for itself or makes a profit.
Jim


By Glenn Fleishman
Special to Wi-Fi Networking News
Permanently archived item 


[1] It's untrue that lobbyists are trying to kill Philly wireless plan, as
this article's headline reads: Instead, incumbent telcos and cable firms are
trying to kill all competitive broadband offerings and extend monopoly
powers beyond their traditional base into a field they've been struggling to
own since about 1996. It has little to do with Philly's plan in particular:
the language in the Pennsylvania bill is from April 2003. No one should be
hung up on the Philadelphia segment. This bill will prevent even tiny towns
from installing their own for-fee (even fee recovery) networks if the
incumbents serve that town and if they are engaged in a modernization plan.

It's fascinating to see that having failed over 10 years to meet goals that
were set, the incumbents have been told, okay, well, just another 10 years
before we think about breaking the monopoly and allowing better competition.


My take is that municipalities should be allowed to build infrastructure on
a vendor-neutral basis that they charge recovery fees to private carriers
and others to operate the network side. You could have non-profits charging
$5 per month to lower-income residents through subsidies and Comcast and
Verizon charging $19.95 per month as an add-on to the phone or cable bill.
It's all logical, quite literally.

What the incumbents have done now is radicalize the issue so that towns and
cities will be more likely to demand to serve as their own ISP instead of
working on vendor-neutral basis to allow all comers.


URLs referenced:
[1] 


--
You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can unsubscribe at any time by sending email to

or visiting 
To change from individual messages to the daily digest, just send email to
 You can reach Wi-Fi Networking News at
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Our postal address: 115 N. 85th St., Suite 205,
Seattle WA 98103

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets suckered(?)

[Jim Henry]

If you really believe that:
poor people in N. Phila. have laptops and will be able to utilize this...
Phila. largest employer and largest taxpayer, Comcast, should be shut out of
this.
that govt. provided services are actually "free"
that Phila. will actually be able to operate this efficiently and
profitably...
that people ans corporations who pay taxes have some responsibility to
provide servies to those who dont't..

then I don't think I can really say anything else worthwhile on this
subject.
Respectfully ,
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:15 AM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets suckered(?)
>
>
> ...
> > inaccurate and that other commercial providers besides Verizon, like
> > Comcast,Yipes, etc, will also be allowed to offer wireless service,
> > but it's
> > no arena for a government entity unless all providers
> refuse to do it.
> ...
>
> These type of blanket statements are made completely without basis.
> Now, there may be plenty of reasons why a  specific gov't run wifi
> network is a bad idea, but this is not one of them.
>
> For as many poorly run municipality run utilities there are just as
> many well run ones, especially in the telecom arena. Municipalities
> aren't the only way to go. They could just as easily establish a
> Collective to run it, as many local ISPs were (at least in the early
> days, and some still are). Also, just because one arm of the local
> government is poorly run (Gas service) doesn't mean that a completely
> separate and independent arm won't be run well and in the public
> interest. Look at our own NYC city government. There are plenty of
> services that are terribly mismanaged, and plenty more that are
> efficiently run.
>
> There's also the expectation that this should be a money
> maker for the
> city, which is a very bad assumption to make. Depending on how it is
> set up, it may turn out to be profitable, but such services shouldn't
> be expected to be cash flow positive, especially at the start. The
> primary goal should be to provide service, especially to underserved
> areas, at a reasonable cost. Only then should they be thinking about
> making money on the service.
>
> Dana Spiegel
> Director, NYCwireless
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.nycwireless.net
>
> On Nov 23, 2004, at 7:59 PM, Jim Henry wrote:
>
> > Philly already owns its own gas works. It's been terribly
> mismanaged
> > over
> > the years and is a money loser rather than money maker for
> the city.
> > They've
> > got no track record to start an effort like this. I hope
> this report is
> > inaccurate and that other commercial providers besides Verizon, like
> > Comcast,Yipes, etc, will also be allowed to offer wireless service,
> > but it's
> > no arena for a government entity unless all providers
> refuse to do it.
> > Jim
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Dustin
> >> Goodwin
> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:21 AM
> >> To: Rob Kelley
> >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets
> suckered(?)
> >>
> >>
> >> Verizon and the other carriers have been blocking municipal telecom
> >> infrastructure build out  for years. This is nothing new.
> >>
> >> - Dustin -
> >>
> >> Rob Kelley wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some said making all downtown Philly wireless was too
> ambitious (not
> >>> me), but now according to muniwireless.com the Pennsylvania
> >> legislature
> >>> has passed a law that prohibits its and gives the whole game
> >> to players
> >>> like Verizon:
> >>>
> >>> As Harold Feld puts it:  "It looks like a public subsidy to build
> >>> infrastructure, but, thanks to the statute, THE ONLY PLACE
> >> YOU CAN BUY
> >>> IT FROM IS VERIZON!"
> >>>
> >>> It's on the governor's desk, awaiting his signature:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.muniwireless.com/archives/000509.html
> >>>
> >>> Rob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __
> >>> Do you Yahoo!?
> >>> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> >>> http://my.yahoo.com
> >>>

RE: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets suckered(?)

[Jim Henry]

Philly already owns its own gas works. It's been terribly mismanaged over
the years and is a money loser rather than money maker for the city. They've
got no track record to start an effort like this. I hope this report is
inaccurate and that other commercial providers besides Verizon, like
Comcast,Yipes, etc, will also be allowed to offer wireless service, but it's
no arena for a government entity unless all providers refuse to do it.
Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dustin
> Goodwin
> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 12:21 AM
> To: Rob Kelley
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets suckered(?)
>
>
> Verizon and the other carriers have been blocking municipal telecom
> infrastructure build out  for years. This is nothing new.
>
> - Dustin -
>
> Rob Kelley wrote:
>
> >Some said making all downtown Philly wireless was too ambitious (not
> >me), but now according to muniwireless.com the Pennsylvania
> legislature
> >has passed a law that prohibits its and gives the whole game
> to players
> >like Verizon:
> >
> >As Harold Feld puts it:  "It looks like a public subsidy to build
> >infrastructure, but, thanks to the statute, THE ONLY PLACE
> YOU CAN BUY
> >IT FROM IS VERIZON!"
> >
> >It's on the governor's desk, awaiting his signature:
> >
> >http://www.muniwireless.com/archives/000509.html
> >
> >Rob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> >http://my.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >--
> >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/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] help!

[Jim Henry]

You might run Netstumbler on your laptop and get an idea of what APs are
using which channels and set your AP to the channel with the weakest
competing signals. Most APs come set to channel 6 as default so if you are
on 6 it would probably help to move to 1 or 11.  And of course make sure you
are not using the default ssid and that your laptop is not set to connect to
"any"


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Schainbaum, Robert
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 12:49 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [nycwireless] help!
>
>
> In the last week, everybody in my building has suddenly bought a
> wireless router. And I can't access my own, a WRT54G. Does
> anyone have a
> clue how I can remedy the problem?
>
> Robert
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] radius server

[Jim Henry]

Wow, this is a Windows version, not Linux?  Great.

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Lists
> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:46 PM
> To: Daniel Grizer
> Cc: NYC Wireless Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] radius server
>
>
> DG,
>
> I haven't used it myself, but here is one I saw fly by on the
> m0n0wall
> mailing list:
>
> DOWNLOAD:
> ftp://ftp.multitech.com/MTS-Software/RASExpress/RADIUS200.EXE
>
> HOWTO: (u may need to cut/paste the full URL into a browser)
> http://m0n0.ch/wall/list/?action=show_msg&actionargs[]=94&acti
onargs[]=40

L


Daniel Grizer wrote:
> I'm looking for a free radius server program that I can put on a win2000
> computer. I want to configure my linksys router to use WPA with radius. Do
> you have any suggestions?
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
> Daniel Grizer
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.782 / Virus Database: 528 - Release Date: 10/22/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] FW: [Wi-Fi Net News] Philly Opened the Floodgates

[Jim Henry]

--
James Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED]



By Nancy Gohring
Special to Wi-Fi Networking News
Permanently archived item 

[1] Since yesterday when the city of Philadelphia said it hopes to build
Wi-Fi networks covering the entire city, two other cities say they're also
looking into similar plans: The city of Madison, Wis. is closely watching
the Philadelphia plan to blanket the city in Wi-Fi in hopes of following
suit. This is one of the first times I've seen a city official discuss the
affect that a city-run network might have on other commercial services.
Madison officials are carefully considering how they should go about
building the network and what it should cost for users because of the affect
the network might have on other operators. I've wondered how commercial
operators feel about municipalities using city funds to build networks that
compete for their business.

In addition, a city councilor in Boston said he wants to [2] cover all of
Boston with Wi-Fi [link via John].

While the cities of Philadelphia, Boston, and Madison talk about building
networks, Culver City, Calif. said that next Thursday it will launch a free
Wi-Fi network in its downtown area. Vernier and Firetide are supplying the
equipment for the network.

In other new network news, the State of Michigan also announced that [3] SBC
would build hotspots in ten Michigan State-owned parks, docks, and rest
areas.

URLs referenced:
[1] 
[2]

[3] 


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] "Free" citywide networks ...

[Jim Henry]

Could you share that with this Phila. area person who doesn't know about
your demo and meeting? Thanks.

--
James Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf
> Of Jon Baer
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 3:01 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [nycwireless] "Free" citywide networks ...
>
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> Saw the Philly mayor on CNBC earlier .. what in the world can
> they *not*
> learn from the demo I gave @ the meeting?
>
> Now Im reading about more and more cities that will follow suit if
> Philly goes through .. you really have to wonder ..
>
> - Jon
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Philly wants to be the biggest hot spot

[Jim Henry]

That would be great if my tax dollars didn't have to pay for roads,
sidewalks, parks and libraries!  Where do you find them!

--
James Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Thor Kristjansson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:20 PM
> To: Jim Henry
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Philly wants to be the biggest hot spot
>
>
>
> I hear some of those commies have even installed free roads and
> sidewalks! Some cities even contain parks and libraries open to the
> public.
>
> -- Daniel
>
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Jim Henry wrote:
>
> ]Yep, or maybe the government can start giving me my
> electricity, water,
> ]phone, and food for free too!
> ]
> ]--
> ]James Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ]
> ]
> ]
> ]> -Original Message-
> ]> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ]> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Dustin
> ]> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:55 PM
> ]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Philly wants to be the biggest hot spot
> ]>
> ]>
> ]> Big telecom has been fighting municipally financed telecom
> ]> infrastructure through legal and legislative channels for
> ]> years. Mostly
> ]> the focus has been on preventing local gov from deploying broadband
> ]> fiber plant that can be shared by providers. I guarantee they
> ]> will fight
> ]> this with everything available.
> ]>
> ]> - Dustin -
> ]>
> ]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ]>
> ]> > Can't believe no one else sent this yet.
> ]> >
> ]> >
> ]> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/01/wireless.citie
> ]s.ap/index.html
> ]>
> ]>
> ]>
> ]> PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- For about $10 million,
> city officials
> ]believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia
> into the world's
> ]largest wireless Internet hot spot.
> ]>
> ]> The ambitious plan, now in the works, would involve
> placing hundreds, or
> ]maybe thousands of small transmitters around the city --
> probably atop
> ]lampposts. Each would be capable of communicating with the wireless
> ]networking cards that now come standard with many computers.
> ]>
> ]> Once complete, the network would deliver broadband Internet almost
> ]anywhere radio waves can travel -- including poor neighborhoods where
> ]high-speed Internet access is now rare.
> ]
> ]--
> ]NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> ]Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> ]Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> ]
> ]---
> ]Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> ]Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> ]Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
> ]
> ]---
> ]Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> ]Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> ]Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
> ]
> ]
> ]--
> ]NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> ]Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> ]Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> ]
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

RE: [nycwireless] Philly wants to be the biggest hot spot

[Jim Henry]

Yep, or maybe the government can start giving me my electricity, water,
phone, and food for free too!

--
James Henry[EMAIL PROTECTED]



> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dustin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 5:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Philly wants to be the biggest hot spot
>
>
> Big telecom has been fighting municipally financed telecom
> infrastructure through legal and legislative channels for
> years. Mostly
> the focus has been on preventing local gov from deploying broadband
> fiber plant that can be shared by providers. I guarantee they
> will fight
> this with everything available.
>
> - Dustin -
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Can't believe no one else sent this yet.
> >
> >
> http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/09/01/wireless.citie
s.ap/index.html
>
>
>
> PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- For about $10 million, city officials
believe they can turn all 135 square miles of Philadelphia into the world's
largest wireless Internet hot spot.
>
> The ambitious plan, now in the works, would involve placing hundreds, or
maybe thousands of small transmitters around the city -- probably atop
lampposts. Each would be capable of communicating with the wireless
networking cards that now come standard with many computers.
>
> Once complete, the network would deliver broadband Internet almost
anywhere radio waves can travel -- including poor neighborhoods where
high-speed Internet access is now rare.

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/