Dana, I beg to differ. The bill being considered seems to want the FCC to direct companies how to run their networks. If that isn't regulation, what is? Jim
-----Original Message----- From: Dana Spiegel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:57 PM To: Jim Henry Cc: Ruben Safir; Jim Henry; [email protected]; [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. It is a means of PRESERVING internet freedom. This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been concerned with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf organizations have been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government regulation. It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net Neutrality are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most business BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Mar 16, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Jim Henry wrote: 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 06:36:03 PST 2006, Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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. As to regulating the Internet, it is the so-called "Net-Neutrality" advocates who are pushing to regulate it That would be Time Warner trying to regulate it. and have even introduced a bill in Congress to attempt to tell private companies The internet is not private property and if Time Warner et al hopes to remain a player in providing common carriage, they had best get behind the publics demand for common access or they WILL be replaced as cable access providers. how they should handle traffic on their own networks! Its not their network. But if they care to remain a common carrier to the public internet, they had better shape up or we will replace them with someone who does provide common carrier access....Google, Covad or IBM for example might be interested in replacing Dolan et al. Ruben -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
