Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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]
On Tue, 2006-03-21 at 08:50 -0500, Ruben Safir 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. > > 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 Ruben, Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. The FCC and the Federal government make the rules. An online, publicly editable application does not make a strong supporting reference. While it can often provide a good summary for people who won't take the time to hunt down the original sources themselves. Its is still just job blow writing down his interpretation. -- 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]
...This thread is growing old and is not worth the amount of space it takes in my mailbox. --- Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Why did you snip the part on the common definition > of Common Carrier. > > Just because some business minded extremest like > yourself have managed > to so far keep ISP's exempt from regulatory > constrainst of common > carriers on the federal level (only on the federal > level) in NO WAY > changes the fact that ISP's are common carriers. > > And the government has, will, and will in the future > regulate ISP's > since they are OBVIOUSLY common carriers. > > Ruben > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > __ 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/
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: > > > > "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 Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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. > Why did you snip the part on the common definition of Common Carrier. Just because some business minded extremest like yourself have managed to so far keep ISP's exempt from regulatory constrainst of common carriers on the federal level (only on the federal level) in NO WAY changes the fact that ISP's are common carriers. And the government has, will, and will in the future regulate ISP's since they are OBVIOUSLY common carriers. 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, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: > "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/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
Ruben has been warned, and the rest of the list should be clear on this as well: Ongoing discussion and debate is good and welcome. Even heated debate is fine from time to time. However, we do not allow attacks or berating comments. Keep things civil and respectful. If you cannot, you will be removed and banned from this list. I have not had an opportunity to read today's postings, however I suggest everyone take a night off and come back in the morning. I'm sure that many (most?) of you could continue discussing with cool heads, but I'd request that for the lists sake, let's hold our discussions until everyone has a chance to cool down. 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 20, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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/ -- 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]
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]
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]
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/
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. A property common carrier is an organization (often a commercial or private business but sometimes a government agency) that provides transportation of persons or goods, often over a definite route according to a regular schedule, making its services available to all who choose to employ them. Airlines, railroads, bus lines, cruise ships and trucking companies are examples of property common carriers. Post offices would also be considered common carriers but as universally they are operated by governments they are often treated differently than commercial organizations, such as given special privileges. Common carriers generally exist under a different regulatory regime than specialised carriers, are subject to different laws, and sometimes to different treatment in other ways (e.g. taxation). For example, common carriers generally explicitly have no legal liability for the contents of freight shipped through them unless the customer has purchased excess insurance for that purpose. A public utility is an organization that holds itself out to the public for hire to provide utility services, such as communication by radio like cellular telephone and satellite television; telecommunication by wire such as telephone, cable tv and the Internet; transmission by physical connection of supplies such as electricity, natural gas, water and sewer services, etc. With the deregulation of public utilities it may also be used in relation to a common carrier company that provides the final transmission link to consumers' homes or businesses, but consumers can buy their gas or electricity from any of a number of supplier companies, all of whom feed power into the common transmission line (see electricity retailing). [edit] Telecommunications In the telecommunications regulation context in the United States, common carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act. Networks not regulated as common carriers are referred to as Information Services or Enhanced Services, and are generally regulated under title I of the Communications Act. Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "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"). [edit] On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 22:23, Ruben Safir wrote: > 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/ -- 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]
> > 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 make you use theirs. MSN comes to mind. 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]
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]
> ISPs are not common carriers. Really, we are not. I've previously pointed > you to CFR which defines common carrier status. If you are too lazy to dig > out the references, here's a brief: > Actually, you really are and I don't care what you pull out to argue otherwise. The minute that you fail to act in good faith in this regard, Congress is going to come out and slap you down for it. And that is what this argument boils down to. You think that as an ISP that you can do whatever you want. Well, homie aint playing that gig and Network Neutrality is a solution coming to an ISP near you. Get used to it. 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 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]
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]
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]
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/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
This thread has stopped being productive. - Dustin - -- 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, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir 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. Ruben, ISPs are not common carriers. Really, we are not. I've previously pointed you to CFR which defines common carrier status. If you are too lazy to dig out the references, here's a brief: Anyone who provides "telecommunications services" *could* be a common carrier (if they choose to). However, ISP are in business to provide "information services" which are *not* a common carrier service (IP transit considered to be similar to providing lottery results, etc). You seem to think ISPs *should* be common carriers, but don't confuse your wishes with reality. (Pilosoft Telekom Inc is a common carrier by virtue of providing voice services, but that's beside the point). > > 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. Fortunately, FCC has more sense than to agree with this standpoint. Glad they get some things right. > > > 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. No, not really. You can pry my property rights from my dead body. :) > > 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. But please don't talk about it until you learn how intarweb works. -alex -- 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, 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. -- 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, 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. Please explain me more, what exactly 'common carrier' does mean under your standards. And then, please read 47 CFR parts 20-68 with regard what it actually means. > 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. Well, in other words, I respect property rights (whether it is real property, or intellectual property) while you promote the 'rights of consumer' to the extreme. > 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 think you intentionally misread what I want to do. I'll repeat, for posterity, 'If a monopoly carrier chooses not to allow others to have access to its network for resale, it should be bound by the "neutrality"'. Please stop cc'ing the posts to your private mailing list. -alex -- 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 10:21 -0500, 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 No its not. Large portions of the fiber plant are privately owned, as well as the companies that light it not being ATT or a BabyBell. Many naps are privately held and provide public switch fabrics anyone can plug into. (See switch&data, telehouse, internap, etc..) > 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. --This is all covered in peering arrangements. If you start block people's traffic you are probably in violation of your peering arrangement with another provider... Tier1 providers depends on their peering and transit arrangements to be able to deliver 'internet access' to their transit customers. Their peering is for resiliency and reach. > 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. They don't own the backbone. But they down own the last mile, which is a natural monopoly. (like most public utilities). > 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. Not really. It doesn't make business sense for backbone providers(tier 1 networks), because it would probably subject them to de-peering. It doesn't make sense to ISP's, because we like all of our customers and I don't want to lose customers to my competition because they can't tinker with the latest 'intarweb' fad. Both ISP's and Backbone providers already have fair competition to deal with and host of service providers with ambitions of being tier 1 networks working their way up the food chain. 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. > 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, 20 Mar 2006, 'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN' wrote: > 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. Well, the difference is 'best effort'. I (as an Internet provider) am obligated to use my best effort to deliver all packets. If I deprioritize certain packets, I fail this (and can be accused of unfair competition) > 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. a) You mean 99% utilization, not 10%. If there is no congestion, there's no problem. Note that I don't mean "5 minute average is 90% of capacity". I mean, "at any given interval, utilization does not exceed capacity". b) Sounds like someone still does not understand what a 'best effort' means. Also, you missed my point that Vonage chose to rely on 'best effort' internet service to provide its service. You get what you pay for. Consider following things: You can buy FiOS 20/2 connection for 80$/month. You can buy 20Mbit connection in Japan for 40$. Yet, buying a point-to-point E1 (2mbit) between US and Japan would cost you around 5000$/month. Why is that? Because of "best effort". While with your two consumer-grade intarweb connections, you may be able to do 2Mbit between US and Japan, you have absolutely no guarantee you will be able to do that 24/7, nor recourse if you can't. Internet is based on "best effort" service. Congestion is a *normal* and *expected* condition. -alex -- 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 ba
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 09:56 -0500, Ruben Safir wrote: > On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:01:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. 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. 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... > 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. 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 > > > 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 relegated to only layer 1 and layer 2 technologies. So Mr. Henry may not be completely wrong about Market Wisdom... :). > Ruben > > President - NYLXS > -- 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]
> > 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]
> 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. Your site in Queens is Pretty lucky if 55 Boards LoS is only blocked by a few trees instead of the Williamsburg Bridge and a few towers. 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]
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]
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. 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 mea
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote:
> You bring up some good points. Let me see if I can tease out the
> logic here, because I think that you (and I'm sure many others) are
> confused about what Net Neutrality really means.
>
> When we speak of internet access, there are really 3 separate
> components we are talking about:
>
> 1) The backbone - the massive pipes that carry all of the traffic of
> the internet, and connect ISP to ISP (these are mostly fiber optic)
You mean "IP transit". Yes, it is a very important thing to discuss, but
I'm not sure if it is in the scope of this discussion.
Big carriers (such as AOL's network arm, ATDN), AT&T, Layer(3), GX, and
many others refuse to openly peer ("settlement-free interconnection") with
smaller carriers. This rarely has anything to do with the 'incumbency' or
'monopoly' status of these large carriers - in fact, (3) and GX are CLECs
and do not have a monopoly in any market they are operating.
I could talk more about this, but I'm not sure if this is something that
should be discussed in context of neutrality. There has *never* been any
allegations that large carriers engage in anti-competitive activities on
their network by blocking traffic. (Depeering discussions aside - I can
give a talk on all of those, but this would take me an hour to explain how
'teh intarweb' really works).
> 2) The last mile - the lines that connect end users (thats you, me,
> and google) to the backbone (these are cable, copper, and fiber, and
> sometimes wireless-Wi-Fi/WiMax/EVDO/etc.)
>
> 3) The internet service that runs on the last mile - THESE are ISPs like
> bway, pilosoft, and aol, and these companies DO NOT own the physical
> lines that make up the last mile
Actually, to be precise (and coincidentally, match the OSI layer diagram),
three things: (I'll use letters to avoid confusion with your numbering).
This is important because you are forgetting about "layer 2" services and
how they are different from "layer 3" services.
a) "layer 1" services, also known as the last mile - physical
infrastructure, copper, etc. It is pretty much either a monopoly or
wireless. The "competitive" infrastructure (CLEC-lit buildings) is
minimal, and can be ignored for purposes of neutrality discussion.
Examples: Verizon the ILEC, TimeWarnerCable
b) "layer 2" services (companies like VADI or Covad) - ones who buy
provide connections to ISPs but themselves do not provide any IP services
or internet connectivity.
Examples: VADI (Verizon Advanced Data, who we buy from), Covad, DSL.Net,
TimeWarner
c) "layer 3" services - companies that actually provide end-user-usable
product, namely connectivity to the internet.
Examples: Pilosoft, AOL, RoadRunner, Bway.net, NYCT, etc.
> some ISPs are (1) and (2) (WISPs especially, as well as Verizon and
> cablecos).
>
> (1) is mostly AT&T (before SBC bought it) and MCI Worldcom (was
> UUNET, now owned by Verizon), Sprint, and Level 3.
>
> When (1) and (2) were separate companies, and when internet services
> weren't converging with phone and tv services, Network Neutrality was a
> given, because the marketplace where all the (2)s were competing and
> purchasing capacity and carriage from the (3)s ensured that no single
> (2) could exert unfair market power.
Almost. Network neutrality was a given because "layer 2" companies
*cannot* (even if they wanted to) to mess with the traffic, it simply
isn't visible to them at the service they provide.
> Then we had Vonage and other VOIP, which is a service that works better
> when its packets are prioritized over other data packets. This points to
> a need for a small reconfiguration of packet carriage, and with a basic
> upgrade, all (1)s, (2)s, and (3)s can respect prioritization of some
> data packets over other data packets based entirely on the packet
> headers. There is a standard IP extension, 802.1p
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service), and all business
> level, many consumer level, and all backbone level equipment can process
> data that contains 802.1p optimization.
Yeah, but you are missing one point - Layer 2 equipment normally does not
care about your IP QoS tags, and it needs to be manually explained which
tags to trust and which tags to ignore. Also, services that "Layer 2"
companies provide are usually price-differentiated, with regard to QoS
support or not.
I've previously given an example: VADI's standard ADSL product is
transported on their network as "UBR" (unspecified bit rate - best effort
service). I can also buy their SDSL product, which is transported as
VBR-nrt (it is best effort, but prioritized above UBR traffic).
Note that you are (maybe unintentionally) confusing multiple things in
your statements. 802.1p is not "IP extension" - it is extension of
ethernet standard (layer 2). It does not exist altogether beyond your
specific ethernet link. 802.1P specifies 3 bits (called "Class of
Service").
IP QoS is not 802.1p. IP header specifi
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
Alex, You bring up some good points. Let me see if I can tease out the logic here, because I think that you (and I'm sure many others) are confused about what Net Neutrality really means. When we speak of internet access, there are really 3 separate components we are talking about: 1) The backbone - the massive pipes that carry all of the traffic of the internet, and connect ISP to ISP (these are mostly fiber optic) 2) The last mile - the lines that connect end users (thats you, me, and google) to the backbone (these are cable, copper, and fiber, and sometimes wireless-Wi-Fi/WiMax/EVDO/etc.) 3) The internet service that runs on the last mile - THESE are ISPs like bway, pilosoft, and aol, and these companies DO NOT own the physical lines that make up the last mile some ISPs are (1) and (2) (WISPs especially, as well as Verizon and cablecos). (1) is mostly AT&T (before SBC bought it) and MCI Worldcom (was UUNET, now owned by Verizon), Sprint, and Level 3. When (1) and (2) were separate companies, and when internet services weren't converging with phone and tv services, Network Neutrality was a given, because the marketplace where all the (2)s were competing and purchasing capacity and carriage from the (3)s ensured that no single (2) could exert unfair market power. Then we had Vonage and other VOIP, which is a service that works better when its packets are prioritized over other data packets. This points to a need for a small reconfiguration of packet carriage, and with a basic upgrade, all (1)s, (2)s, and (3)s can respect prioritization of some data packets over other data packets based entirely on the packet headers. There is a standard IP extension, 802.1p (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service), and all business level, many consumer level, and all backbone level equipment can process data that contains 802.1p optimization. This is part 1 of Network Neutrality: any service that requests QoS, when carried by a (1), (2), and (3) that can route and handle 802.1p, should respect and follow such packet instructions, regardless of the origin or destination of the packet, so long as it doesn't damage the routing of other packets. In the case of pilosoft, Alex, this means that you certainly can provide pilosoft VOIP service, and the packets that carry that service should be optimized appropriately. But, by putting into place equipment that provides this functionality, you must also appropriately process any other QoS optimized packets, even if they don't originate or terminate with you. As a consumer, this is important because it means that, even though you, as my ISP, may provide VoIP service, I am not required to only get such service through you. You can offer benefits if I do buy through you, such as discounts/bundling or converged billing or enhanced voicemail that delivers directly to my email inbox. But you cannot leverage your status as an ISP to offer an optimized service and block that same optimization from being used by a third party service. Continuing on, SBC bought AT&T and Verizon bough MCI Worldcom. Now, two of the biggest backbone networks are owned by the two biggest telcos. (1) and (2) are now the same company. So the marketplace dynamics that ensured that no (2) could leverage unfair market power over another (2) in terms of backbone traffic. This is part 2 of Network Neutrality: backbone providers (1) cannot leverage their ownership of last mile networks (2) (funded by taxpayers to the tune of $2000 per person over the past decade or so) to favor or discourage traffic from any origin to any destination. This means that if I pay for a 5mbps connection, I can use that 5mbps connection for whatever traffic I choose, so long as it doesn't damage the network, to its fullest capacity. This also means that if Google pays for a 1gbps connection to the backbone, whatever they pay for that connectivity also pays for carriage to any endpoint, to the fullest extent of the capacity of the network, without the threat that their traffic will be artificially reduced in capacity or speed due to failure to pay additional fees for entry to a network. Alex, this is the part of Net Neutrality that has absolutely nothing to do with how you operate your "network", except that it will prevent AT&T and Verizon from unfairly competing against you using their ownership of both backbone and last mile connectivity. What Verizon and AT&T are likely to do (especially since they publicly stated about as much), is that they will require Google and others to pay additional fees to get higher speed access to their end user networks. They will be able to do this since they own the networks between Google's ISP and the end user. Since you (and all other ISPs) don't own any backbone, you can't offer this enhanced speed access for Google and other content providers over y
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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. Why do we want to own our network? To provide better quality of service. That doesn't just mean "QoS" in IP sense. It means that when we are responsible for a circuit end-to-end, we can do much more than any other ISP. We can provide better "QoS" because we control every point on the network, and we can prioritize traffic accordingly. It also means better service - on these circuits, you won't get the "oh, we'll open ticket with verizon" - circuit is ours. 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. > 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/
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 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, 19 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: > 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. 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 -- 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, 19 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: > On Sun, 2006-03-19 at 11:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Um, how about...No? My network is *not* at dependent on common carrier > > access provided by VZ - we have DS1 loops that are not VZ, lit MTU > > buildings and wireless loops. > > Oh Rally! You have your own techs now coming out of the subsidized > space your in at 55 broad street putting in lines from the pole to the > house, over Verizon's monopoly. Um a) Our space in 55 broad is not subsidized. We are paying the full market rate. b) We are providing services to other tenants of 55 Broad via in-building fiber that we fully pay for. No Verizon. 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. In all of the above cases, we provide VoIP services to these customers, and arrange QoS on our point-to-point links to prioritize our VoIP traffic above the other traffic. (Sometimes via simple prioritization, sometimes via explicit reservation of N kbps for our traffic). > I didn't realize that you were doing that. Now you do. -alex -- 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 11:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Um, how about...No? My network is *not* at dependent on common > carrier > access provided by VZ - we have DS1 loops that are not VZ, lit MTU > buildings and wireless loops. Oh Rally! You have your own techs now coming out of the subsidized space your in at 55 broad street putting in lines from the pole to the house, over Verizon's monopoly. I didn't realize that you were doing that. Good Work! 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: > 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, 19 Mar 2006, 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. I agree. But the current "Net Neutrality" proponents want to go further than that. And that's wrong. As usual, devil is in the details. Nothing wrong with "Net Neutrality" which means "you shouldn't engage in anti-competitive behavior" (as you suggested, to intentionally handicap competitor's traffic). Now, whether such law is even *necessary* is unclear - it is already unlawful as anti-competitive behavior (see Vonage vs Madison River, which was resolved in favor of Vonage without any new laws). -alex -- 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]
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]
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote:
> Well that is no surprise since your also opposed to nearly every other
> Free Software and community initiative. The only reason you hang around
> these communities is to grope money from them.
I'm only opposed to the communist propaganda, whether yours or other
groups.
> And GOD knows I wish that Verizon QOS'ed pilosoft.net to /dev/null.
>
> Never the less, once you offer your service to the public, your a common
> carrier and you should be and you actually already are regulated.
It boggles my mind why am I arguing with someone who is still unable to
master spelling.
> > 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.
>
> Thats a joke. "Your" network is dependent on the common carrier access
> of telco and all the rest of the net, which is a guarantee everyone who
> uses your services also must have.
Um, how about...No? My network is *not* at dependent on common carrier
access provided by VZ - we have DS1 loops that are not VZ, lit MTU
buildings and wireless loops.
Sure, for DSL, we are dependent on the local monopoly aka VZ, and yes, VZ
has DSL products with different QoS - which are priced differently. That
has been the case for many years. If you want DSL loop with UBR ("best
effort") QoS, you pay X$. If you want loop with VBR-nrt
("slightly-better-than-best-effort"), you pay Y$. For customers whom we
are providing voice service that absolutely positively has to be up, we
order VBR-nrt loops at nearly three times the cost.
And that is way it should be. Mandating identical QoS for any customer
makes about as much sense as mandating hotels to have exactly-sized rooms,
or restaurants to serve only one type of meal.
> > 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.
>
> 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".
> > 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.
> >
>
> For the same reasoning you just mindlessly sprawled out on your
> keyboard. As I said before, its not the zaniness of your opinions that
> get me, but the bravado that you state them with!
Another non-sequitur.
> BTW Alex, please do SOMETHING about the spam emulating from your
> network.
Uh huh. Please stop beating your wife. Oh, and get a dictionary.
-alex
--
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]
Well that is no surprise since your also opposed to nearly every other Free Software and community initiative. The only reason you hang around these communities is to grope money from them. And GOD knows I wish that Verizon QOS'ed pilosoft.net to /dev/null. Never the less, once you offer your service to the public, your a common carrier and you should be and you actually already are regulated. > > 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. > Thats a joke. "Your" network is dependent on the common carrier access of telco and all the rest of the net, which is a guarantee everyone who uses your services also must have. > 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. > 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. > 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. > For the same reasoning you just mindlessly sprawled out on your keyboard. As I said before, its not the zaniness of your opinions that get me, but the bravado that you state them with! BTW Alex, please do SOMETHING about the spam emulating from your network. Ruben President NYLXS -- 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]
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 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/ Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow? Linux: Where do you want to go today? BSD: Are you guys comi
RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
> The market will decide the wisdom of your decisions. > Jim Maybe in Alex's case. If a small ISP routinely de-prioritizes some of his customer's traffic, the customers switch and he goes out of business. In Verizon's case, the customer begins hearing talking heads say "it's "normal", "acceptable", "their right", and "not something that's likely to change"--and more misleading, disempowering junk. The "wisdom of the market"? More a "marketplace of corporate-spun wisdom." -- 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]
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]
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, Don't confuse Wyden's bill with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about preventing the de-facto regulation by telcos about what can travel on internet lines. 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 12:58 PM, 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. 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/ -- 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]
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/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments
Jim, I agree with you in the main, concerning the exigent nature of conditions driving the incumbents' actions. I happen to think that, with the exception of enterprises in major cities, many of their wireline businesses will be spun off voluntarily at some point to loopco land, when they become distressed enough, or when it can be demonstrated in terms that Wall Street understands that diminishing returns are all that exist, so as to not impinge on the rosier prospects afforded stockholders by the wireless side of the business. But that's another discussion. They're going about it in all the wrong ways, imo. Instead of acknowledging 21st Century dynamics and embracing the psychology of an ever-evolving marketplace, as opposed to the staid conditions that prevailed during the last century, they are digging themselves deeper into their silos and bunkers at a time when users demand to be not only the consumers of content and services, but producers of it, as well. Frank - Original Message - From: Jim Henry To: Kevin Mark , nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Sent: Fri Mar 17 8:35 Subject: Fwd: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] 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/ > > Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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]
There have been way more messages than I want on this subject delivered to my mail box!! PLEASE address future messages to those arguing his subject instead of to the whole list!! Thanks! = Bruce Ehlers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rulesdontapply.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 2:58 PM To: Ruben Safir; Jim Henry Cc: Jim Henry; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] 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]
-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/
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=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 Co
Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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]
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]
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]
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: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
Mazzella President Center for Individual Freedom www.cfif.org -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Coluccio Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:21 PM To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] When a topic like network neutrality begins to appear in places like the "Talk of the Town" column of The New Yorker Magazine, then you know it's only a matter of time before it hits the mainstream of public awareness. And that's not such a bad thing. Begin article: --- NET LOSSES By James Surowiecki march 13, 2006 "In the first decades of the twentieth CENTURY, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker. "If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet. Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. "Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers." Continued at: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_s urowiecki -- Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 19 Fulton Street South Street Seaport New York, NY 10038 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/ nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- 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] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (fwd)
Oh really? When is the cheque arriving? Can't wait! I think I'll spend it on Surface to Surface Microwave gear, no reason... -- 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]
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 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: > 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 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]
> > 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] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
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" > respons
RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News - AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
When a topic like network neutrality begins to appear in places like the "Talk of the Town" column of The New Yorker Magazine, then you know it's only a matter of time before it hits the mainstream of public awareness. And that's not such a bad thing. Begin article: --- NET LOSSES By James Surowiecki march 13, 2006 "In the first decades of the twentieth CENTURY, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of “tiered access” for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers’ calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn’t pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an “all circuits busy” response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.’s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker. "If you’ve never heard about this bit of business history, there’s a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a “common carriage” rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while “tiered access” never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet. Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called “network neutrality,” which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. "Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of “Internet freedom.” In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called “special treatment,” and those that don’t could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers." Continued at: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060320ta_talk_surowiecki -- Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 19 Fulton Street South Street Seaport New York, NY 10038 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
