Ted, I was sort of with you there until near the end. The U.S. Healthcare system offers the best health care in the world. As to economic development, sure we could improve and our broadband could improve,but right now and we've got by far the best economic system in the world. More and better connectivity would be great, but there is no evidence it would translate to a better economy. Right now,just about anyone in the country can have high speed access by walking into their local library,if they do not want to pay for it or cannot afford it. Why don't they take advantage of it? I think for the same reason that if you gave everyone in this country a free newspaper every day that many would not read it, or might only read the comics,or the sports. A great number of people just don't want to learn. Broadband is available now to most of those (in the U.S.) who want it. Respectfully, Jim
On Tue Mar 21 06:37:47 PST 2006, tstout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > >
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
