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/
