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 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. > >> 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. > >> > 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. > > >> 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. > > Ruben > >> >> >> > > > 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 >> > > > -- __________________________ > Brooklyn Linux Solutions > > So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that > Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the > mind of the world - RI Safir 1998 > > DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002 > http://fairuse.nylxs.com > > "Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME" > > http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting > http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients > http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software > http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or > stories and articles from around the net > http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown > Brooklyn.... > > -- > 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/
