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
...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
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
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
]
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
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
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
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
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, 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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
; 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
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
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
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
And I thought you were filtering out my posts! sigh
-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
thought you were filtering out my posts! sigh
-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
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
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
; 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
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
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, 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
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?
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
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)
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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/
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:
, 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
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
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
]
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
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
, 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
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
55 matches
Mail list logo
