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 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". > > Which is it Alex. Can we regulate them (and you) or not? Not this > bogus conversation your having about customer requested QOS and the > generalized choosing of service grades for clients. The business > practice of using your common carrier business to discriminate against > other businesses and content providers. 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? -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
