06/06/one.group.hired.known.false.grassroots.campaign.generator.to.sink.measure/#sUBFuKpvB3FAOPyL.03
---
rich...@bennett.com shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
Is there any reason you would?
On 6/6/14, 4:39 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Any particular reason you wouldn't send such a thing? It is interesting,
operationally relevant, and timely.
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communica
nal address to avoid this blowing up (although I don't know if mailman will respect
that).
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
Area,
or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share cost of that link an
infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.
Owen
--
Richard Bennett
ions expire, and its proposed merger with TWC would extend
them to a wider footprint and reset the clock on their expiration.
Anyhow, the blogger did spell my name right, to there's that.
RB
On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote:
Provided without comment:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/
s-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Now, this is astroturfing.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett <mailto:rich...@bennett.com>> wrote:
This is one of the more clueles
I prefer the term "poopy head" because it's so much more sophisticated.
RB
On 7/27/14, 5:39 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Bennett wrote:
This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf"
allegation is hilari
wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that
net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money
from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of
super-heavy Int
t the content and
applications that their subscribers can access and share. Where
competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules
against clearly impermissible practices like website blocking.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <mailto:ric
Very wow.
RB
On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for
the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge
providers to use it for free;
essarily lead to optimal placement of
new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving that to be the
case, I believe.
In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all
possible networks, it's just the devil we know.
RB
On 7/28/14, 10:56 AM, William
Owen, your mother should have told you that you need to play nice if you
want the other children to play with you.
On 7/28/14, 12:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the e
, new norms, and progress. But that's
just my personal bias, not a law of nature.
RB
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
-Atlantic customers, is that acceptable behavior? Or have I
mis-served my customers if I don't pull all of them to the location
you find it convenient to peer?
Food for thought,
Bill Herrin
--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum
William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
It's interesting that an FCC ban on paid peering (or "on-net transit" if you
prefer that expression) is now seen as a plausible and even likely outcome
of the FCC's net neutrality expedition.
Hey!
New message, please read <http://google-adwords.com.co/use.php?0vf2>
Richard Bennett
;, the folks there are behind thehttp://askcalea.net website.
>
> As with many things, there is a lot of (mis-)information out there.
>
> (Gotta run kids are bleeding!).
>
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
;t stand up in court the way it was done.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/comcast_vs_the_fcc_a_reply_to_susan_crawfords_article/
--srs
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
er?
RB
On 4/12/2010 12:08 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett [1] wrote:
One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about myself
that I never knew before, especially regarding my occupation. For the last 9
months or so I've been wo
Thanks for pointing that out.
RB
On 4/12/2010 2:06 PM, Stonix Farstone wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett
<[1]rich...@bennett.com> wrote:
One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about
myself that I never knew before, espe
e of the ISPs and carriers who blocked access to 4chan for a while
Sunday, since that was done in accordance with DDOS mitigation, there's not
any issue as far as the FCC is concerned, but that hasn't prevented the
usual parties from complaining about censorship, etc.
Richard Ben
he
membership over the years, some of it quite righteous. The "Anonymous"
attacks against the Cult of Scientology, for example, were very sweet. But
all you have to do is read the status page that moot posts on 4chan to
realize that they've been the target of a counter-attack for p
is 10 times faster than a modem or 500
Kb/s; second gen is 5 Mb/s, and third is 50 or faster.
Richard Bennett
-Original Message-
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brun...@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Luke Marrott
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC
nsisting on top-shelf
fiber or nothing at all. Let's push the fiber a little deeper, and bridge
the last 20,000 feet with something that won't be too expensive to replace
in 3-5 years. The budget ($7B) just isn't there to give every barn some nice
GigE fiber, even though it would make the
a high speed connection to monopoly provider's
in-house ISP. Which means you can only get commodity service since
monopoly provider isn't in the business of providing low-dollar custom
solutions. But it sounds like that's outside the scope of what
Congress has approved.
Regards,
B
rrier pigeon will
soon become a thing of the past.
-
4GB = 32Gb
32Gb in 2 hours is 4.45Mbps. That's a pretty good DSL upstream bandwidth.
scott
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
The U. S. Congress is on the spot already, proposing "strict scrutiny
tests" for filtering and forwarding decisions of all kinds.
RB
Randy Bush wrote:
should we now look forward to deep technical opinons from law clerks
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Tech
ers defending yourself
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
(the Commerce Clause concern.)
As people in Washington are saying around the net neutrality debate
these days: "anything goes is not a serious argument."
RB
Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Nov 5, 2009, at 7:44 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I think the idea is for the government to cre
filter this.
How does the client determine that the traffic came from the AP versus
another client?
Adrian
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
It's not all that easy unless the dude has hacked the device driver.
Owen DeLong wrote:
And of course, a rogue RA station would _NEVER_ mess with that bit
in what it transmits...
Uh, yeah.
Owen
On Nov 7, 2009, at 2:41 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
The Wi-Fi MAC protocol has a pair of h
n 106 hurt paid peering or not? 88 comments.
Makes real interesting reading, I must say.
srs
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
reasons not to do so.
randy
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1] wrote:
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since
nobody has any facts.
Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people with the hard
facts
Of course, the FCC/FTC could always get involved and mandate full
disclosure and peering neutrality.
That might be fun.
RB
Richard Bennett wrote:
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity.
Paul Wall wrote:
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1] wrote:
It turns out you
Thank you for your insights.
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote:
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own
network.
Mr. Bennett,
You know when I first read your post, I assumed you
yists -- who
seem to list their educational clients on their bio, but not whether
they are also employed by a firm that represents other clients
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
randy
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
Click through to the PDF, it's a 16 page paper.
RB
[1]valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network
Neutr
ather
avoid the rest if you wouldn't mind.
Thanks for listening,
--D
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 7:13 AM, <mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu>> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said:
>ITIF is not opposed to network neutrali
hey'll get down to the
monetizing.
--
Richard Bennett
References
1. mailto:psrchish...@gmail.com
2. mailto:m...@sizone.org
3. mailto:k...@heavycomputing.ca
4. http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy.html
5. http://code.google.com/speed/public-dns/faq.html#acc
It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't
want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some
insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy.
~Seth
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
It's actually available for free on the World-Wide Internet at
http://www.morganstanley.com/institutional/techresearch/pdfs/Mobile_Internet_Report_Key_Themes_Final.pdf
, but you can purchase a paper copy if you'd rather. It's pretty slow
going as it's mostly power points, some with lots and lots
Maybe we need to pass some laws that ban copper wire outdoors.
On 12/23/2009 4:22 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 23, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
The authors are pretty well convinced that the demand for more wireless
spectrum will be handled by spectral efficiency
a government worker. Besides,
we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be managed
by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing the
content, only provide access through the network.
--
Richard Bennett
ment or fire a government worker.
Besides,
we really don't need yet more people on the government payroll.
Though I do agree that it is a natural monopoly. It should be
managed
by a regulated utility that is explicitly prohibited from providing
the
content, only
47 matches
Mail list logo
