Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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. Traditionally common carrier means a business that transports people or physical goods. In the 20th century, the term came to refer also to utilities (those transporting some service such as communications or public utilities). The term differs from private carrier, which operates solely for the benefit of one entity and does not offer services to the general public That should end the discussion on common carriers. Any fair minded individual can clearly understand that the sentence Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a common carrier and, so far, have managed to do so. means that ISPs have managed enough political power to prevent their rightful regularity definition as common carriers. But that has nothing to do with the clear fact that they are a common carrier, and if they mess up network neutrality, they will be facing far more regulations to protect the public from any gross violation of unfair business practice. Ruben On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: snip common carrier and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so common carrier status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both retail and backbone) is an information service (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a telecommunications service (which might be classified as common carriage). So, which part of this is unclear to you, Ruben? ISPs are not common carriers. Done and done. In the alternate reality, the one you wish you lived in, they might be, but here on earth, we aren't. That should end the discussion at least on this specific subject. -- 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]
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:01:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll avoid replying to ad-hominem attacks. On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: homes, and that uses Verizon. Your PTP connection to Queens uses Verizon lines for that matter (unless 55 Broad has suddenly grown to Twin Tower size). Welcome to state of wireless in 2006. We are running Orthogon Systems radios, and we get ~50mbps across ~15 miles with LoS partially obstructed by trees on the Queens side, and fresnel zone partially obstructed by buildings on Manhattan side. (Yes, we do have roof rights in 55 Broad). So how does what your saying have anything to do with the current discussion, or the side discussion of your dependence on Verizon for your business. It does. We try our best to have our own network that is independent of anyone. We've spent $ to get roof rights and buy orthogon radios vs buying a DS3 circuit from VZ for exactly that reason. We are paying $ for the build/splicing/IRUs on the dark fiber connecting buildings that we are in for exactly that reason. We want to own our network. This is all very interesting and all unrelated to the discussion, Clearly you depend on Verizon for access to your customer base. Clearly Verizon is a Common Carrier and Clearly YOU become a Common Carrier once someone purchases service from you. When you become a Commmon Carrier, the public has every right to expect unobstructive, and regulated business practices. 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. 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. Ruben President - NYLXS -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://fairuse.nylxs.com Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn -- 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]
As a result, you are entirely wrong about backbones 'processing' IP ToS tagged frames - no carrier that I know does respect user-set IP ToS tags with regard to queueing. All IP transit is best effort. (exceptions are certain carriers offering IP-VPN, but that's beside this discussion, and its not transit anyway). So, what is the bottom line about QoS in real world? It does not exist, beyond given carrier's network, as specified by carrier's networking staff and defined by carrier's business needs, available technologies and equipment. This is where your mistake is. The backbone is now owned by the telcos They can do whatever they want, aside from the fact that this marelous techno display just clouds the issue that when someone is buying common carrier class servers, A) They should have the right to do so at a fair price, and B) At no point in the chain should anyone have the right prevent fair access. In addition to that, they don't need to own the backbone (or even the last mile). They can interfere with Vonage anywhere from your phone jack/ATM Bridge, etc to the point where they hand off your packets to someone else. So the ISP can do it, the back bone CAN do it, the last mile can do it. They can all carve out portions of the net for unfair competition. Ruben -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://fairuse.nylxs.com Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn -- 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]
Most obviously, we use the fact that it is our circuit to provide guaranteed QoS to our VoIP products, if customer chooses to buy that. Now, if the network neutrality means we cannot (as a common carrier) prioritize certain packets over others, it is simply ridiculous. Actually, it is not riducles. Although this is not the situation which network neutrality is pointed at, never the less, if Vinnie from Queens is contracted with you for normal DSL (or even LoS wireless) at 1.5 mbs and *your* private brand VoIP QoS is killing his service because you gave your VoIP priority over his porn and mail downloads, then your darn straight it is a problem, and not one that can be solved in the market. And how about HIS Vonage phone and PTP alternatives to phone service which are now way popular. As a common carrier, everyone must be treated equally, incoming and outgoing. If your going to guarantee VoIP through puts your just going to have to make sure you have enough bandwidth, or get OUT of the common carrier business. All those clients now use you as a common carrier. They already have legal rights and protections. The Network Neutrality bills floating around, proposed by those communists at Google, are intended to just strengthen those rights and prevetn someone like you using their common carrier status to interfere with public commerce. Of course, they have certain rights - as common carrier, we can't sniff the traffic (except as permitted by law), etc. Laws of unfair competition would prevent us from tampering with/obstructing our competitor's traffic. So, what exactly do network neutrality bills would do? Strengthen what? Devil's in details. 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. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://fairuse.nylxs.com Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn -- 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]
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 potatoes to oranges. Network Neutrality is common amongst peers,It makes business sense for tier 1 providers. For companies that have a monopoly over a public resource, I feel, it should be required. PS. If SBC told me I had to pay for transit across their network, I'd tell them to speak to their peering partners and see how they feel about it... I'd also bring it up with my upstream provider I'm sure they'd have a position about it as well. Which would probably mean bad business for SBC. There are many network service providers who would rejoice at seeing the ILEC's De-Peered. I'd rejoice at seeing them
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/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 11:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: As a result, you are entirely wrong about backbones 'processing' IP ToS tagged frames - no carrier that I know does respect user-set IP ToS tags with regard to queueing. All IP transit is best effort. (exceptions are certain carriers offering IP-VPN, but that's beside this discussion, and its not transit anyway). So, what is the bottom line about QoS in real world? It does not exist, beyond given carrier's network, as specified by carrier's networking staff and defined by carrier's business needs, available technologies and equipment. This is where your mistake is. The backbone is now owned by the telcos It isn't, really. You did not wait for the 'part 2' of my response to explain how the internet really works, and continue to speak about something you have no idea about. You didn't do any such thing other than declare that such companies have not shown any desire to do this yet. Yeah, I trust them enough to want legal protection from them. 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]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 11:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: Clearly you depend on Verizon for access to your customer base. Clearly Verizon is a Common Carrier and Clearly YOU become a Common Carrier once someone purchases service from you. When you become a Commmon Carrier, the public has every right to expect unobstructive, and regulated business practices. You have an interesting definition of common carrier. A common carrier, as it always has been, is anyone who provides public infrastructure and services for a necessary resource of commerce and communications. I suggest you turn your history book back to its origins in the 18th and 17th century. 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]
common carrier common carrier: In a telecommunications context, a telecommunications company that holds itself out to the public for hire to provide communications transmission services. Note: In the United States, such companies are usually subject to regulation by Federal and state regulatory commissions. Synonyms carrier, commercial carrier, communications common carrier, [and, loosely] interexchange carrier. These definitions were prepared by ATIS Committee T1A1. For more information on the work related to these definitions, please visit the ATIS website. This HTML version of Telecom Glossary 2K was last generated on February 28, 2001. References can be found in the Foreword. On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:24, Ruben Safir wrote: common carrier One entry found for common carrier. Main Entry: common carrier Function: noun : a business or agency that is available to the public for transportation of persons, goods, or messages For More Information on common carrier go to Britannica.com Get the Top 10 Search Results for common carrier -- 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]
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm only opposed to the communist propaganda, whether yours or other groups. ROFL!!! That is the best load of crap I've ever heard from you. Thank you very much Mr Pilosoft. Anyone dealing with you should be aware that they are facing a DRM infested, Spam spreading, anti-Free Software, gilded aged would be robber baron who will disrupt their communications flow at any time. Your a good muckraker, and who honors well the memory of McCarthy!. Please fix the spam coming out of your network. Thanx 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]
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would include ALL common carrier providers, but to answer your silly question, No, it doesn't seem silly to single out companies for increased scrutiny and regulation who are given physical monopolies communications access to the world wide web, or any other communications network, for that matter. Well - see below, I agree with that. If a monopoly carrier chooses not to allow others to have access to its network for resale, it should be bound by the neutrality. Which is it Alex. Can we regulate them (and you) or not? Not this bogus conversation your having about customer requested QOS and the generalized choosing of service grades for clients. The business practice of using your common carrier business to discriminate against other businesses and content providers. 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]
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 18:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Um a) Our space in 55 broad is not subsidized. We are paying the full market rate. That WHOLE BUILDING is currently subsidized otherwise your Market rate would be much higher, something I'm sure you noticed when shopping for a space. b) We are providing services to other tenants of 55 Broad via in-building fiber that we fully pay for. No Verizon. Who gives a rat about this. Your in the business of providing ASDL to homes, and that uses Verizon. Your PTP connection to Queens uses Verizon lines for that matter (unless 55 Broad has suddenly grown to Twin Tower size). So how does what your saying have anything to do with the current discussion, or the side discussion of your dependence on Verizon for your business. All those clients now use you as a common carrier. They already have legal rights and protections. The Network Neutrality bills floating around, proposed by those communists at Google, are intended to just strengthen those rights and prevetn someone like you using their common carrier status to interfere with public commerce. Ruben DRM is Theft c) We have other buildings nearby lit via our own wireless or other carriers' DS1 or ethernet circuits, and provide IP services. There's no Verizon in the picture either. d) We have customers out in Queens to whom we are doing point-point wireless DS3 circuits. No Verizon. -- 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]
On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 18:27 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I clearly explained the difference above. I'll repeat: 'If a monopoly carrier chooses not to allow others to have access to its network for resale, it should be bound by the neutrality'. Which part of this is unclear? -alex The part where you fail to admit that regulating common carrier networks is fair and right without being a communist plot. 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]
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: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:58 -0800, Jim Henry wrote: 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. I want the cable companies out of my streets. Let them run their private network in their private homes, not mine. 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]
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 09:50 -0800, Jim Henry wrote: Ruben, I do not work for Time Warner. Yeah - right. -- 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]
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]
On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 12:57 -0800, Jim Henry wrote: Utilities such as cable companies don't get free access to streets, underground conduits, et. They PAY the community for it. they extorted the communities for it. They can leave now. 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]
:0: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null Congressmen - please add the following to your procmail filter if you wish to retain my vote and campain contributions. Ruben Safir On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 20:17 -0500, Jim Henry wrote: Well spoken. I disagree with your goal, but you elucidate it well. I've said many times that I disagree with Whitacre's stated intentions as what will surely turn out to be a lousy business strategy. However, I agree with his (company's) right to operate their network as he sees fit. Jim -Original Message- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] Jim, I don't know anything about the Center for Individual Freedom. From their issues page, they seem to attack any government regulation or taxation, regardless of the purpose of the action. For the rest of our readers, I want to state for the record that we, as supporters of Net Neutrality, do so only as a reactionary measure. I think you would be hard pressed to find a one of us who supports government regulation just for the hell of it. Our fight for Net Neutrality comes as a direct reaction to statements made by Ed Whitacre, CEO of SBC, John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, and William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth. Coupled with the vast majority of this country only having a choice between a single cableco and a single telco in order to get internet access, we feel that the normal marketplace mechanisms that would (possibly) counteract the telco and cableco drive to control the internet are visibly absent. As a result, we, people who generally oppose additional regulation by our government, believe the creation of Net Neutrality regulation is the only way to counteract actions taken by the consolidating telco and monopolistic oligopolies. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Mar 15, 2006, at 11:44 PM, Jim Henry wrote: Frank, Yepper, and here is yet another article: Center for Individual Freedom Dear Friend: Why after so many years of fighting to keep the Internet largely free of regulation and taxation are some lawmakers and Internet companies now advocating for increased regulation of the Internet? The United States House of Representatives may consider a provision that will lead to regulation of the Internet. Please contact your Representative in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner and ask them to keep the Internet free of regulation. Use the hyperlink below to send your personalized letter to your Representative in Congress and Majority Leader Boehner today! http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316 http://capwiz.com/cfif/issues/alert/?alertid=8574316type=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 ATT 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
Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: A better idea for Net neutrality
You may be right but I find this funny from someone using yahoo mail, which will be one of the first casualties of a closed internet. Ruben On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 18:13, Rob Kelley wrote: 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_Freedom_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/ -- 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 Question BellInvestments
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. And this is where the lie is. The ability to provide broadband has been built into the telco system since the late 1970's and the franchise fees are the public access channels which provide exclusive monopolies to cable and telco to the last mile into the home. This resource should NOT be treated as a property of Cable or Telco providers. It is, by definition, 100% a public trust. WHO GIVES A RATS @$$ if every cable company and telco company goes belly up in the morning. The economy won't even BLINK, and it would free up billions of dollars of public investment. The current way that common carrier access is handled is exactly as if the roads and highways where sold lock stock and barrel to FedEx. Rather than the roads being a MEANS of competition for serves, they are being used to squash innovation. PERIOD. Those franchise fees that your complaining about, that is CHEAP stuff for the cable companies and something that they wouldn't want tampered with, THAT IS FOR SURE. If your such a genius about business, look up the term Gas House Gangs. There was a darn good reason the St Louis Cardinals were named after them. Just remember, not EVERYONE everywhere is stupid enough to swallow this BS which falls under the file of What is good for GM is Good for America Blahhh. It makes me vomit. Ruben 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+Newsreferral=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 ATT 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. ATT 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
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts Question BellInvestments
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/
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts QuestionBellInvestments
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/
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - Analysts QuestionBellInvestments
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/
RE: [nycwireless] Fwd: Multichannel News - AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments
Oye On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:58, Jim Henry wrote: 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/ -- 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
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 23:01, Jim Henry wrote: OK. I guess I just have to conclude you're hard of listening. I think we're done. Jim I'm sure that is the case with a lot of people you encounter (hint hint) -- 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]
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? Oh this is so dapper. You do Newspeak very well. And when the Department of Commerce ran the AOL-TW through the ringer just on this issue, and TW promised that they would not prevent equal access, then what was that? I hate people like you because you not only lie, but you don't give a damn about who you hurt in the process. So called net-neutrality has been an ongoing concern since the very beginnings of the internet. Its been discussed in paper after paper, hearing after hearing. At NO TIME has the public ever tolerated any segment of the Net to monopolize access to the internet in general. The current legistlation spounsored largely by Google represents the publics interest in preventing common carriers from absuing their monopolistic position in the economy to harm the public. I just want to tell you that I take these issues very personally and do not forget people who work to hurt and a real way me and my children. Ruben -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 http://fairuse.nylxs.com Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] USA Today cites Kushnick's ebook in merger article
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 19:39 -0500, Joe Plotkin wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2006-03-07-att-bellsouth_x.htm ATT-BellSouth merger grows from weakness Three years ago, BellSouth CEO Duane Ackerman popped into our offices to tell us how miserable his business was. I was reading a Wall Street Journal editorial on this merger and it was bizarre. While it made some fundamentally sound points about the weakness of the original ATT breakup, it just grossed over the entire problem of the monopoly of the last mile by the baby bells and their abject monopolistic behaviors which have left the US way behind, as the article pointed out, in terms of broadband. The thrust of the editorial was to dis google for campaigning for network neutrality. In doing so, they created their own world of make believe where baby bell monopolies on local lines were not the causative reason for the business and technological troubles that the US has faced and which is ruining out competitiveness. Ruben -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Does anyone use Apple's Airtunes Service?
Hey Sara Long Time no hear. What's cooking with you. I last heard from you in Washington DC when we stormed congress :) Ruben On 2004.09.08 20:01 Stirland, Sarah wrote: Hi all -- I'm a writer at National Journal's Technology Daily in Washington DC, and I'm working on a story that's too complicated to explain here, but if anyone uses Apple's Airtunes product (http://www.apple.com/airportexpress/airtunes.html) I'd love to hear from you. I need to hear from you asap. Alternatively, if you have a lot of digital music on your hard drive and live in an environment with unencrypted WiFi networks around you or any other kind of unencrypted wireless networks for that matter, I'd love to have a quick chat with you. Sarah Sarah Lai Stirland Senior Writer National Journal's Technology Daily http://www.technologydaily.com http://www.sarahstirland.com Tel: 202-261 0356 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't subscribe to National Journal's Technology Daily? Try a free trial subscription! Go to: http://nationaljournal.com/about/technologydaily/trial.htm -- 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] Wireless for the GNOME Conference
The GNOME Conference is being held this Satuday through Monday in Brooklyn. We have some commitments from help to set up wireless, but need a couple of more volunteers. Please help with this conference if you have time. Ruben Safir -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn 1-718-382-0585 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Gnome Summit Wireless
We might need to set up a wireless network for about 200 seat at the GNOME Summit at Brooklyn College. I have no expereince with Wireless. Can we get some help from NYWIreless with this? It would be in November. Barring that, I need to give CUNY a list of equiptment which we might need. I have no idea how many seats you can put on a single wireless node, or a recommended node. Ruben -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn 1-718-382-0585 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] We can't hear the speaker
What speaker? On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of us can't hear the speaker. I can hear the people talking in the back of the room much better than I cn the speaker. Sociable chat server is down. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn 1-718-382-0585 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] Handling the March Against War
Will there be Uplinks from the Israeli capital, Jerusalem, and Chevron? The jews there have a lot at stake in this stuff... this war against iraq might finally mean freeing the jews from Arab oppression . ruben On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:22:07PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So I was wondering, how can wireless be used to help mass demonstrations? The main thing is being able to provide ways for the rest of the world to see what's happening in the space. Live webcams anywhere along the march route with their urls posted to the indymedia.org site would be perfect. Some of us are going down there with our camcorders and laptops and streaming live video+audio from Bryant Park to the web. [instructions at: http://open4all.info/laika/] That's also being posted to the indymedia site. If you plan on doing the same and need help setting it up, drop me a line. [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] The other thing is that there are several alternative media folk who will be seeking out the city's hotspots in order to upload their news reports from their 802.11 equipped devices. I've pointed a bunch of people to the nodedb but it would be great to give them more info if you know of anything in particular on the east side of midtown. Free Speech TV, Democracy Now and others are doing a live satellitecast across North America that's being relayed to the rest of the world. They actually have a big need for any type of net access where the production van is going to be (somewhere around 51st 1st I think? 51st 2nd?) I've checked the place out with NetStumbler and haven't found anything available, but if anyone knows of anything in that area that could be helpful, it would be wonderful. thx. -kc. You know, it's late to bring it up, but The World Says No To War march is this saturday. I checked the website, and a lot of the feeder marches are starting from the New York Public Library. http://unitedforpeace.org/index.php Rob -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net -- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn 1-718-382-0585 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] remove me
Pssst - Zap Your a remove On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 08:38:00PM -0500, V Ferri wrote: REMOVE ME FROM THE LIST -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:38 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: nycwireless digest, Vol 1 #710 - 11 msgs Send nycwireless mailing list submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Vivato switch ... (Peter Ostrowski) 2. Feb 15th anti war activities (k.skvorak) 3. Re: Feb 15th anti war activities (Ruben I Safir) 4. Re: Feb 15th anti war activities (Bon sy) 5. Re: Feb 15th anti war activities (Jacob Farkas) 6. Re: Feb 15th anti war activities (Kev) 7. Re: Feb 15th anti war activities (Kev) 8. who makes these access points? (Michael McConnell) 9. identifying connector (Michael McConnell) 10. Re: identifying connector (Marcel) 11. Two new antennas (Superpass) --__--__-- Message: 1 Reply-To: Peter Ostrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Peter Ostrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NYC Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [nycwireless] Vivato switch ... Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:23:56 -0500 If you cant get the vivato switch to get through the building walls then you would still need APs on the top of the buildings to get access inside. I don't see where the savings is.. - Original Message - From: Bob Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ben Serebin [EMAIL PROTECTED]; NYC Wireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Peter Ostrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Vivato switch ... If you are trying to cover a building or a campus the elimination of the need for multiple access points with the accompanying need for multiple power connections, multiple real estate locations, multiple internet wired connections and the resulting maintenance cost is the main value of Vivato IMHO. Bob Miller --__--__-- Message: 2 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:42:23 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: k.skvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [nycwireless] Feb 15th anti war activities -- On feb 15th NYC will see the largest antiwar demos it has ever seen, in coordination with the biggest antiwar demos the world has ever seen IndyMedia will be covering it http://nyc.indymedia.org/ wireless connections is something we are always seeking to be able to fully cover the event part of that coverage will be 'live' or nearly live video sharing across the world do any of you NYCwireless heads feel like pluggin in? there is a lot to connect with. check out the video list for some of the current tech discussions. http://lists.indymedia.org/listinfo/imc-video == This is a proposal to coordinate a GLOBAL COLLABORATIVE IMC video project (s) around the actions planned for feb 15th. One possibility is like this: video activists shooting the Feb 15th actions in their cities quickly edit short segments of video each of the groups involved FTP - UPLOAD- short segments to an agreed upon server, with an agreed upon video codec each group that uploads, also has the possibility to DOWNLOAD clips from the same server from anywhere and everywhere else in the world to edit into their own LOCAL longer video - we each can share each others video in this way groups not working on local pieces can just upload with the knowledge that it will be edited into larger pieces somewhere else. we will be editing our own ' 'local/global' doc, here in NYC- HOPEFULLY with the inclusion of video from all over the world! and we will be putting video from NYC up onto this server because of the fact that uploads will likely remain pretty short, and that local groups will want to prioritize local voices, this is NOT a proposal for a single, definitive IMC documentary of Feb 15th. it is more of a proposal to facilitate the production of MANY such documentaries. -the server has yet to be determined, but i think we can find one I propose we all talk about this on: imc-video @lists.indymedia.org http://lists.indymedia.org/listinfo/imc-video There are also other possibilities for sharing footage including the satellite coverage planned by free speech TV- details will be coming soon on this satellite side of things, but there is also uplinks planned from europe PLEASE fwd this around to all the collectives, as i have only posted it to a few lists so far
Re: [nycwireless] Perl programmer needed
I'll do it On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:19:47PM -0400, Anthony Townsend wrote: Hi - we need someone with good Perl skills to write a logfile analysis script. It is nothing too complicated, estimated it would take a decent codewriter a few hours at most to whip someting up. This analysis will help us to get a better understanding of how people are using our park networks. Please contact me off-list for details. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- __ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __ http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.nylxs.com/radio - Free Software Radio Show and Archives http://www.brooklynonline.com - For the love of Brooklyn http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www.nyfairuse.org - The foundation of Democracy http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/mp3/dr.mp3 - Imagine my surprise when I saw you... http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn 1-718-382-5752 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
