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 organizat
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 t
...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. Don
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
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
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,
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 [wa
[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 pr
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
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 fo
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
>
> 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 th
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.
> >
>
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 trans
> 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 f
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,
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
ork 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%KB
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
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/
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 IS
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 offer
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 e
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
> > cert
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 b
>
> 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
> infrastruct
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
>
> 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
>
> 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,
> 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 B
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
t;[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
-Analysts
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 separat
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) T
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 Or
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 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
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
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!
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 ac
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 su
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 fa
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 f
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 s
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 o
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
gt;
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 Neutral
> 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", "accepta
06 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 wh
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. Priva
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 b
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
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
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 intent
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
-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 busine
ge- 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
> -AnalystsQuestionBellInv
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 M
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
-AnalystsQuestionBellInv
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 t
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:
[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 be
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/nyc
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/S
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 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:
> 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 indee
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
rea
>
> 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 r
om: [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 Sur
71 matches
Mail list logo
