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/
