Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Jim, I hardly think that's the point. Besides the fact that Jeff Chester _is not_ extreme and _takes no side_ in the article re: nuclear power, you are (as I've come to expect from your posts) arguing irrelevant details instead of the larger issue. In the article below, which everyone should read, Jeff lays out a number of important points regarding the promises that were made when we (taxpayers) helped these companies build their networks, and these companies' failures to live up to their end of the bargain. Furthermore, instead of trying to provide what they promised to us, they are taking advantage of the monopolistic market position we put them in. Net neutrality is not a new thing. It is the oldest and most important part of the internet's infrastructure. Now, after pulling a bait and switch on us over the past 2 decades, the telcos are trying to pull another bait and switch on us. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Jim Henry wrote: This guy (the author, not you Rob) references nuclear power like it's a BAD thing! Concern for large companies exercising their market power over their netwokrs isn't going to get much traction when it only comes from people on the extreme. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Kelley (yahoo) Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:50 PM To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester The End of the Internet? by JEFF CHESTER The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are developing strategies that would track and store information on our every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing system, the scope of which could rival the National Security Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these providers would have first priority on our computer and television screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply shut out. Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling new subscription plans that would further limit the online experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital communications services as private networks, free of policy safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged digital retail machine. The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!" The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone compani
[nycwireless] Wifi Site Survey Tools, Spectrum Analyzers, etc
Network Computing has a series of reviews about WLAN tools for administrators. Some of them are expensive, but the reviews are interesting, particularly those on graphical site survey tools. They also devote a page to open-source tools (netstumbler, kismet): [http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?articleID=174402549&pgno=1 ] Rob -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] Fwd: [wsfii-discuss] Re: wsfii-discuss Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3
An interesting perspective from some international Community Wireless organizations regarding FON. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info Begin forwarded message: From: Ramon Roca <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: February 7, 2006 6:02:46 PM EST To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [wsfii-discuss] Re: wsfii-discuss Digest, Vol 12, Issue 3 Reply-To: Discuss list on the World Summit on Free Information Infrastructure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Clever analisys. And yes, at least now are saying who they are, believe or not at the beginning they were trying to convince us that they was really a non-profit org, so just because of that, we have to donate our networks to them xDDD. Some people at guifi are already trying to get their wrt54gl for 25 € (plus taxes and shipping). I'll let you know if it works :) BTW and now seriously, just thinking that the best message that real Commons inspired networks can send to those bloggers/false philanthropists/investors instead of donating our assets for their spoil is to list our networks and show to the world how global we are. If there is really any philanthropist who wants to invest in developing free networks, will clearly know where they are and which principles apply. Skype was somewhat pioneer in the voip, but on wifi they are just another newcomer, and still now truly commons inspired networks are stronger. Hopefully will be also in the future, but imho that's in our hands to make it happen, otherwise we can't blame for somebody doing something that we didn't had enough courage to do. Good night! En/na kdag ha escrit: the case of FUN* -FUN boss sold 2 ideas in the .com era, now he calls himself a philantropist..FUN is next. -FUN began as a .es and called up a social movement!, now they are a .com (in their most sincere act) -last week they got some money from skype and seems also google is investing ..little but investing... -their FUD affects the work of the free networks, the perception that users/audience in cities where they come to operate with the "social" approach. their commercial appropiation of the "open/libre networks" discurse, spoils the course of the wireless communities. -another example on how capitalism digests anything...just open a blog full of hype. ...and here "we" stand and actually they sell the wrt54g for 25 euros with the pre-installed firmware, im not sure if one signs a contract to not re-flash the device? i will like to get some for: http://www.medellinwireless.net or http://www.altred.net those tipical wireless community projects in this "developing" world :P ...etc... /ad *typo intended for avoiding blogsphere and google speculation. ___ wsfii-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss ___ wsfii-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/wsfii-discuss -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
This guy (the author, not you Rob) references nuclear power like it's a BAD thing! Concern for large companies exercising their market power over their netwokrs isn't going to get much traction when it only comes from people on the extreme. Jim > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Rob Kelley (yahoo) > Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:50 PM > To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? > > > The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > > > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > > > The End of the Internet? > > > > by JEFF CHESTER > > > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we > do online. > > > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > > developing strategies that would track and store > information on our > > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > > shut out. > > > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or > received. > > > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to > further weaken > > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > > communications services as private networks, free of policy > > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the > Congress and > > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > > digital retail machine. > > > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. > Senior phone > > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > > [for] free is nuts!" > > > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > > capitalist economy." > > > > Net Neutrality > > > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating > > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable > > companies would not be allowed to slow d
re: [nycwireless] outdoor rated cat5 cable
Dana, I was quite surprised to find that lengths of the product you're looking for under 1000 ft are actually available. Give a look here: http://www.cat5ecableguy.com/inc/sdetail/14224 No matter which product you ultimately select, if your application extends to the outdoors, then be sure to take measures to protect _yourself _and _your _gear against lightning and surge damage by adhering to proper grounding and bonding techniques. Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael: > > The Weekly Standard? Ha, that may take awhile: "The Weekly Standard > magazine is considered the prime voice of Republican neoconservatives, and > one of the most influential publications in Washington under the Bush > Administration." > [http://www.disinfopedia.com/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard ] My point! They (currently) control the discussion. So if it's not coming from that direction it's not really being said (I'm pessimistic :-) ) Michael > > On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > > > > > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > > > > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > > > > > The End of the Internet? > > > > > > by JEFF CHESTER > > > > > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > > > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > > > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > > > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > > > > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > > > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > > > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > > > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > > > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > > > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > > > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > > > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > > > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > > > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > > > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > > > shut out. > > > > > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > > > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > > > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > > > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > > > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > > > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > > > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > > > > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > > > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > > > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > > > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > > > communications services as private networks, free of policy > > > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > > > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > > > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > > > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > > > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > > > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > > > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > > > digital retail machine. > > > > > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > > > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > > > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > > > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > > > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > > > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > > > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > > > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > > > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > > > [for] free is nuts!" > > > > > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > > > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > > > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > > > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > > > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > > > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > > > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > > > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > > > capitalist economy." > > > > > > Net Neutrality > > > > > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > > > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > > > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > > > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > > > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > > > that broadband providers would be prohibited from d
RE: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Michael: The Weekly Standard? Ha, that may take awhile: "The Weekly Standard magazine is considered the prime voice of Republican neoconservatives, and one of the most influential publications in Washington under the Bush Administration." [http://www.disinfopedia.com/index.php?title=Weekly_Standard ] The Network Neutrality issue represents the latest chapter in America's ongoing Broadband Scandal. We never got Fiber to the Home despite the extra charges we took on our phone bills to pay for it. Now Verizon finally comes up with its overpriced fiber product, FiOS. Bruce Kushnik puts it best: "Where's the 45MB I already paid for!" [http://muniwireless.com/community/1023 ] Consumers have a vested interest in making sure the telcos are brought in to account for the Broadband scandal. I remember the talk about needing to stay competitive in an information economy. Now, we're ranked 13th to 16th in the world depending on which survey you read, behind Korea, Canada, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Italy and other nations. These days the telco is the "troll under the bridge": it charges exorbitant rates to consumers for substandard service. Now it's trying to charge content providers as well. Troll under the bridge. Game plan for consumers: 1. Fight for net neutrality and against the trolls under the bridge 2. Raise awareness of US Broadband ranking in the world 3. Spotlight the Broadband Scandal and demand the telcos be brought to account for it. Rob Kelley -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Stearne Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:06 PM To: Rob Kelley (yahoo) Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet? Let us know when The Weekly Standard endorses Network Neutrality, until then it's not going to get any attention. Good article though. Michael On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > > > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > > > The End of the Internet? > > > > by JEFF CHESTER > > > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > > shut out. > > > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > > communications services as private networks, free of policy > > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > > digital retail machine. > > > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > > to use my pipes? The Inte
Re: [nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
Let us know when The Weekly Standard endorses Network Neutrality, until then it's not going to get any attention. Good article though. Michael On 2/7/06, Rob Kelley (yahoo) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > > > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > > > The End of the Internet? > > > > by JEFF CHESTER > > > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > > shut out. > > > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > > communications services as private networks, free of policy > > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > > digital retail machine. > > > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > > [for] free is nuts!" > > > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > > capitalist economy." > > > > Net Neutrality > > > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating > > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable > > companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or > > undesirable content. > > > > Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care > > about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair > > elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate > > control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if > > major political advertisers could make strategic payments to > > Comcast so that ads fro
[nycwireless] The End of the Internet?
The Nation gets hip to Network Neutrality... > From The Nation [posted online on February 1, 2006] > > http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060213/chester > > The End of the Internet? > > by JEFF CHESTER > > The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an > alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and > nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded > service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online. > > Verizon, Comcast, Bell South and other communications giants are > developing strategies that would track and store information on our > every move in cyberspace in a vast data-collection and marketing > system, the scope of which could rival the National Security > Agency. According to white papers now being circulated in the > cable, telephone and telecommunications industries, those with the > deepest pockets--corporations, special-interest groups and major > advertisers--would get preferred treatment. Content from these > providers would have first priority on our computer and television > screens, while information seen as undesirable, such as peer-to- > peer communications, could be relegated to a slow lane or simply > shut out. > > Under the plans they are considering, all of us--from content > providers to individual users--would pay more to surf online, > stream videos or even send e-mail. Industry planners are mulling > new subscription plans that would further limit the online > experience, establishing "platinum," "gold" and "silver" levels of > Internet access that would set limits on the number of downloads, > media streams or even e-mail messages that could be sent or received. > > To make this pay-to-play vision a reality, phone and cable > lobbyists are now engaged in a political campaign to further weaken > the nation's communications policy laws. They want the federal > government to permit them to operate Internet and other digital > communications services as private networks, free of policy > safeguards or governmental oversight. Indeed, both the Congress and > the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are considering > proposals that will have far-reaching impact on the Internet's > future. Ten years after passage of the ill-advised > Telecommunications Act of 1996, telephone and cable companies are > using the same political snake oil to convince compromised or > clueless lawmakers to subvert the Internet into a turbo-charged > digital retail machine. > > The telephone industry has been somewhat more candid than the cable > industry about its strategy for the Internet's future. Senior phone > executives have publicly discussed plans to begin imposing a new > scheme for the delivery of Internet content, especially from major > Internet content companies. As Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of > AT&T, told Business Week in November, "Why should they be allowed > to use my pipes? The Internet can't be free in that sense, because > we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a > Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes > [for] free is nuts!" > > The phone industry has marshaled its political allies to help win > the freedom to impose this new broadband business model. At a > recent conference held by the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a > think tank funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and other media > companies, there was much discussion of a plan for phone companies > to impose fees on a sliding scale, charging content providers > different levels of service. "Price discrimination," noted PFF's > resident media expert Adam Thierer, "drives the market-based > capitalist economy." > > Net Neutrality > > To ward off the prospect of virtual toll booths on the information > highway, some new media companies and public-interest groups are > calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on > the Internet. Common Cause, Amazon, Google, Free Press, Media > Access Project and Consumers Union, among others, have proposed > that broadband providers would be prohibited from discriminating > against all forms of digital content. For example, phone or cable > companies would not be allowed to slow down competing or > undesirable content. > > Without proactive intervention, the values and issues that we care > about--civil rights, economic justice, the environment and fair > elections--will be further threatened by this push for corporate > control. Imagine how the next presidential election would unfold if > major political advertisers could make strategic payments to > Comcast so that ads from Democratic and Republican candidates were > more visible and user-friendly than ads of third-party candidates > with less funds. Consider what would happen if an online > advertisement promoting nuclear power prominently popped up on a > cable broa
[nycwireless] Wifi Site Survey Tools, Spectrum Analyzers, etc
Network Computing has a series of reviews about WLAN tools for administrators. Some of them are expensive, but the reviews are interesting, particularly those on graphical site survey tools. They also devote a page to open-source tools (netstumbler, kismet): [http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?articleID=174402549&pgno=1 ] Rob -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] outdoor rated cat5 cable
Does anyone have a good local source for outdoor rated cat5 or cat5e cabling? I need perhaps 50 ft of it. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
