of unfair business practice.
Ruben
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote:
snip
common carrier and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such
classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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
: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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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/
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
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/
: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
You may be right but I find this funny from someone using yahoo mail,
which will be one of the first casualties of a closed internet.
Ruben
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 18:13, Rob Kelley wrote:
Ok, I'll call it. Astroturf!
For those who don't know, Policy Analyst Randolph May is actually
with the
As to it not being about profit, I could not disagree more. Who is
it supposedly making such a decision? Certainly no one in control of enough
resources to make a substantial increase in broadband penetration. If so
they'd be gone pretty quickly for fiscal incompetence.
And this is
Make the U.S. more competitive? Look around you! It is other
nations who need to emulate us to attempt to compete with US. And as a
relative measure against ourselves, by all the parameters used to
measure the health of the U.S. economy (unemployment pct, cost of
living, inflation, # people
of IT professionals in
NYC. Its fairly unpleasant for a lot of people who have been
essentially screwed by Telco and the Cable Man (along with others I
might add).
Ruben
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ruben Safir
Sent: Wednesday, March
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:27, Jim Henry wrote:
Ruben,
Telcos don't pay franchise fees in most cases to the best of my knowledge
and are now doing their best to avoid paying them as cable companies do,
even as the telcos begin to roll out video service.
On the other hand, cable
, but it causes me to have less sympathy that all of those
folks are no longer in those positions.
Just my 2 cents.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Ruben Safir
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 11:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 23:01, Jim Henry wrote:
OK. I guess I just have to conclude you're hard of listening. I think we're
done.
Jim
I'm sure that is the case with a lot of people you encounter (hint hint)
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe:
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
On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 19:39 -0500, Joe Plotkin wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2006-03-07-att-bellsouth_x.htm
ATT-BellSouth merger grows from weakness
Three years ago, BellSouth CEO Duane Ackerman popped into our offices to
tell us how miserable his business was.
Hey Sara
Long Time no hear.
What's cooking with you. I last heard from you in Washington DC
when we stormed congress :)
Ruben
On 2004.09.08 20:01 Stirland, Sarah wrote:
Hi all --
I'm a writer at National Journal's Technology Daily in Washington DC,
and I'm working on a story that's too
The GNOME Conference is being held this Satuday through Monday in Brooklyn.
We have some commitments from help to set up wireless, but need a couple of
more volunteers. Please help with this conference if you have time.
Ruben Safir
--
__
Brooklyn Linux Solutions
We might need to set up a wireless network for about 200 seat at the GNOME
Summit at Brooklyn College. I have no expereince with Wireless.
Can we get some help from NYWIreless with this? It would be in November.
Barring that, I need to give CUNY a list of equiptment which we might need.
I
What speaker?
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 05:37:39PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most of us can't hear the speaker. I can hear the people talking in the
back of the room much better than I cn the speaker.
Sociable chat server is down.
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Will there be Uplinks from the Israeli capital, Jerusalem, and Chevron?
The jews there have a lot at stake in this stuff...
this war against iraq might finally mean freeing the jews from Arab
oppression .
ruben
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 05:22:07PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I was
Pssst - Zap
Your a remove
On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 08:38:00PM -0500, V Ferri wrote:
REMOVE ME FROM THE LIST
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 10:38
I'll do it
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 01:19:47PM -0400, Anthony Townsend wrote:
Hi - we need someone with good Perl skills to write a logfile analysis
script. It is nothing too complicated, estimated it would take a decent
codewriter a few hours at most to whip someting up.
This analysis
35 matches
Mail list logo
