MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-03-20 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 07:01:33PM -0500, alex-at-pilosoft.com wrote:
> I'll avoid replying to ad-hominem attacks.
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
> > homes, and that uses Verizon. Your PTP connection to Queens uses
> > Verizon lines for that matter (unless 55 Broad has suddenly grown to
> > Twin Tower size).
> Welcome to state of wireless in 2006. We are running Orthogon Systems
> radios, and we get ~50mbps across ~15 miles with LoS partially obstructed
> by trees on the Queens side, and fresnel zone partially obstructed by
> buildings on Manhattan side.
>
> (Yes, we do have roof rights in 55 Broad).
>
> > So how does what your saying have anything to do with the current
> > discussion, or the side discussion of your dependence on Verizon for
> > your business.
> It does. We try our best to have our own network that is independent of
> anyone. We've spent $$$$$ to get roof rights and buy orthogon radios vs
> buying a DS3 circuit from VZ for exactly that reason. We are paying $$$$$
> for the build/splicing/IRUs on the dark fiber connecting buildings that we
> are in for exactly that reason. We want to own our network.
>
This is all very interesting and all unrelated to the discussion,
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.
> 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.
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.
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....
|
|
