Statements against new.net?

Wed Mar 14 01:09:31 UTC 2001

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 05:28:53AM -0800, Scott Francis wrote:
> Unfortunately, "the market" tends to consist in large majority of 1)
> users, and 2) management. And we all know how bright those two
> particular segments of the population tend to be.

Bright or not, these not-so-bright people have a direct impact on your
bottom line. Up to you if you want to ignore that, though.

> If, as a group, the NANOG readership decides to take a single position on
> anything (ha!), then we could very likely effectively determine in which
> direction "the market" will go. After all, if _nobody's_ customers can access
> new.net's non-sanctioned gTLDs, they can't very well go to another provider
> for such access, and new.net will die the quick death that it deserves.

I read this and immediately remembered Michael Dillon; is he still around?
There were always interesting discussions about collusion and price-fixing
back in the good old days.

(I'm referring to the idea that the core Internet operators would collude
to drive a relatively new entrant to the field (new.net) out of business.
Yes, it's an anal way to look at it. No, IANAL. No, I don't have a point,
just reminiscing. ;-)

-- 
Edward S. Marshall <esm at logic.net>                http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[                  Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.                  ]