I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent advertising. Nick On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net
wrote:
* mpetach@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure
it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered.
Nice strawman you erected there.
Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :)
Now it's time for people to take turns poking holes in it. ^_^
Thanks!
Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers.
I'm not so much standing up for them as pointing out that simply calling for additional oversight and regulation often brings increased costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money comes from to pay for government verification of industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my weak search-fu, however, and some person with more knowledge on the subject will be able to shed light on how such validation and compliance testing is typically paid for.
-- Niels.
Thanks!
Matt