MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-03-20 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
|
>
> 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....
|
|
