Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 From: "Mike Lieman" <mikelieman@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying.
If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Mike Lieman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 From: "Mike Lieman" <mikelieman@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying.
If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law?
Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. -- Jeff Shultz _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jeff Shultz wrote:
Mike Lieman wrote:
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> wrote:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 From: "Mike Lieman" <mikelieman@gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <darkuncle@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying.
If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law?
Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. Yes, this is getting very offtopic very fast. Politics, philosophy and legal are explicitly forbidden on the list, and this hits all 3.
Could y'all knock it off, please? Please see this for NANOG AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html Off-topic: * Whining as in, "so-and-so are terrible lawbreakers and they owe us". * Network neutrality (this has been discussed to death here) - unless you have something poignant to add and you've read in detail what has been said previously. * Anything political that does not have operational impact. * Anything legal that does not have operational impact. On-topic: * Operational impact of legal/political/financial external constraints. -alex _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
participants (3)
-
Alex Pilosov -
Jeff Shultz -
Mike Lieman