This argument just plain old hurts. You're so right, and so, so wrong. Your staunch ideologies give you away.
Somewhere in the middle is the answer. The current monopolists/duopolists, who used a combination of U.S. tax payer dollars and investor dollars to build their pipes (based greatly on false promises to customers) are not going away. The argument can not be about what we have 'NOW,' and what makes it right or wrong. The discussion has to be about which models (please notice the plural) will work going forward - not just for connectivity, but for U.S. economic development, local-regional-international competition, and creating wealth here at home. The current model ignores these issue - at our great risk - and is about as broken as our healthcare system. So, what are the options? TEDStout Earth ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: nycwireless Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19 Send nycwireless mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of nycwireless digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) 2. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) 3. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) 4. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) 5. RE: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Jim Henry) 6. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Dana Spiegel) 7. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 8. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) 9. Re: New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] (Ruben Safir) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:26:35 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain > > The only place where this type of anti-competitive practice makes any > business sense is if you already have a natural monopoly to work with. > > Like the last mile. > Actually it makes all the sense in the world for Cable Television and VoIP phone providers and anyone else who decides that it is in their best interest to discriminate against your traffic in order to make you use theirs. MSN comes to mind. Ruben ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 22:38:11 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain 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 that transports people or physical goods. In the 20th century, the term came to refer also to utilities (those transporting some service such as communications or public utilities). The term differs from private carrier, which operates solely for the benefit of one entity and does not offer services to the general public. A property common carrier is an organization (often a commercial or private business but sometimes a government agency) that provides transportation of persons or goods, often over a definite route according to a regular schedule, making its services available to all who choose to employ them. Airlines, railroads, bus lines, cruise ships and trucking companies are examples of property common carriers. Post offices would also be considered common carriers but as universally they are operated by governments they are often treated differently than commercial organizations, such as given special privileges. Common carriers generally exist under a different regulatory regime than specialised carriers, are subject to different laws, and sometimes to different treatment in other ways (e.g. taxation). For example, common carriers generally explicitly have no legal liability for the contents of freight shipped through them unless the customer has purchased excess insurance for that purpose. A public utility is an organization that holds itself out to the public for hire to provide utility services, such as communication by radio like cellular telephone and satellite television; telecommunication by wire such as telephone, cable tv and the Internet; transmission by physical connection of supplies such as electricity, natural gas, water and sewer services, etc. With the deregulation of public utilities it may also be used in relation to a common carrier company that provides the final transmission link to consumers' homes or businesses, but consumers can buy their gas or electricity from any of a number of supplier companies, all of whom feed power into the common transmission line (see electricity retailing). [edit] Telecommunications In the telecommunications regulation context in the United States, common carriers are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission under title II of the Communications Act. Networks not regulated as common carriers are referred to as Information Services or Enhanced Services, and are generally regulated under title I of the Communications Act. Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as "common carriage"). [edit] On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 22:23, Ruben Safir wrote: > 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 become a Commmon Carrier, the public has every right to expect > > > unobstructive, and regulated business practices. > > You have an interesting definition of common carrier. > > > A common carrier, as it always has been, is anyone who provides public > infrastructure and services for a necessary resource of commerce and > communications. > > I suggest you turn your history book back to its origins in the 18th and > 17th century. > > Ruben > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:24:11 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain common carrier One entry found for common carrier. Main Entry: common carrier Function: noun : a business or agency that is available to the public for transportation of persons, goods, or messages For More Information on "common carrier" go to Britannica.com Get the Top 10 Search Results for "common carrier" ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:25:23 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain 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 the United States, such companies are usually subject to regulation by Federal and state regulatory commissions. Synonyms carrier, commercial carrier, communications common carrier, [and, loosely] interexchange carrier. ________________________________________________________________________ These definitions were prepared by ATIS Committee T1A1. For more information on the work related to these definitions, please visit the ATIS website. This HTML version of Telecom Glossary 2K was last generated on February 28, 2001. References can be found in the Foreword. On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:24, Ruben Safir wrote: > common carrier > One entry found for common carrier. > > > Main Entry: common carrier > Function: noun > : a business or agency that is > available to the public for > transportation of persons, goods, or > messages > > > For More Information on "common carrier" go to Britannica.com > > Get the Top 10 Search Results for "common carrier" > > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:12:44 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Henry) Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: > Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] > > > 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, Your private > property argument is without any merit. > > Ruben > > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release > Date: 3/17/2006 > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:31:01 -0500 From: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Ruben has been warned, and the rest of the list should be clear on this as well: Ongoing discussion and debate is good and welcome. Even heated debate is fine from time to time. However, we do not allow attacks or berating comments. Keep things civil and respectful. If you cannot, you will be removed and banned from this list. I have not had an opportunity to read today's postings, however I suggest everyone take a night off and come back in the morning. I'm sure that many (most?) of you could continue discussing with cool heads, but I'd request that for the lists sake, let's hold our discussions until everyone has a chance to cool down. 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 20, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Jim Henry wrote: > 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: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: >> Multichannel News-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] >> >> >> 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, Your private >> property argument is without any merit. >> >> Ruben >> >> >> -- >> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >> Un/Subscribe: >> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release >> Date: 3/17/2006 >> >> > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/ > nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 23:36:41 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: <snip> > "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such > classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, > but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common > carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations > they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE > FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 > (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an > "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather > than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as > "common carriage"). So, which part of this is unclear to you, Ruben? ISPs are not common carriers. Done and done. In the alternate reality, the one you wish you lived in, they might be, but here on earth, we aren't. That should end the discussion at least on this specific subject. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:31:48 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain 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 done. In the alternate reality, the one you wish you > lived in, they might be, but here on earth, we aren't. > Why did you snip the part on the common definition of Common Carrier. Just because some business minded extremest like yourself have managed to so far keep ISP's exempt from regulatory constrainst of common carriers on the federal level (only on the federal level) in NO WAY changes the fact that ISP's are common carriers. And the government has, will, and will in the future regulate ISP's since they are OBVIOUSLY common carriers. Ruben ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:50:52 -0500 From: Ruben Safir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain 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 that transports people or physical goods. In the 20th century, the term came to refer also to utilities (those transporting some service such as communications or public utilities). The term differs from private carrier, which operates solely for the benefit of one entity and does not offer services to the general public That should end the discussion on common carriers. Any fair minded individual can clearly understand that the sentence "Internet Service Providers generally wish to avoid being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so." means that ISPs have managed enough political power to prevent their rightful regularity definition as common carriers. But that has nothing to do with the clear fact that they are a common carrier, and if they mess up network neutrality, they will be facing far more regulations to protect the public from any gross violation of unfair business practice. Ruben On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 23:36 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote: > > <snip> > > "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. Before 1996, such > > classification could be helpful in defending a monopolistic position, > > but the main focus of policy has been on competition, so "common > > carrier" status has little value for ISPs, while carrying obligations > > they would rather avoid. The key FCC Order on this point is: IN RE > > FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 > > (1998), which holds that ISP service (both "retail" and backbone) is an > > "information service" (not subject to common carrier obligations) rather > > than a "telecommunications service" (which might be classified as > > "common carriage"). > So, which part of this is unclear to you, Ruben? ISPs are not common > carriers. Done and done. In the alternate reality, the one you wish you > lived in, they might be, but here on earth, we aren't. > > That should end the discussion at least on this specific subject. > > -- > 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/ End of nycwireless Digest, Vol 37, Issue 19 ******************************************* -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
