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 develop that use that > > public infrastructure. > > Yes - you become the common carrier for your clients because you are the > gateway for them to the internet. I agree that crealy when the > government is handing a company a monopoly on the last mile that then > they have even more responsibility to the public, but everyone how > offers plain vanilla access has responsibilites as common carriers and > are regulared as such. Ruben,
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: Anyone who provides "telecommunications services" *could* be a common carrier (if they choose to). However, ISP are in business to provide "information services" which are *not* a common carrier service (IP transit considered to be similar to providing lottery results, etc). You seem to think ISPs *should* be common carriers, but don't confuse your wishes with reality. (Pilosoft Telekom Inc is a common carrier by virtue of providing voice services, but that's beside the point). > > 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... > > Your home network is your own business. But if your selling it, your > now a business, just like TW, AOL and Verizon. Fortunately, FCC has more sense than to agree with this standpoint. Glad they get some things right. > > > 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. > > > > That is the sickest part of this conversation. When the dust settles > I'm willing to bet Alex just agrees with everyone else. No, not really. You can pry my property rights from my dead body. :) > > 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 > > Different conversation. We're talking about the artificial obstruction > of services through software when connectivity and physical access are > already achived. But please don't talk about it until you learn how intarweb works. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
