Stability of the Internet?
mikebat at tmcs.net
Fri May 18 23:22:27 UTC 2001
William Allen Simpson
> Anyway, the fact that some of us now block BGP acceptance for the
> new.net blocks, because it causes us support costs, would be an
> argument that the Internet is less "stable".
If it is, it is because they ("some of us") are unwilling to support their
customers' use of the Internet, not because of New.net. If they decide that
IRC is increasing support costs, will they block port 6666+? How about
Napster, did any of them block that one?
I think they are blocking New.net for some other reason, and are being
dishonest claiming increased support costs as the justification. There are
plenty of other services on the Internet - like Napster, or any MP3 trading
service, especially with all the DMCA notifications that are flying around -
that can increase support costs. Why not just block all of them and save
even more money? I'm not particularly fond of New.net, but I am even less
fond of nerds on power trips who think they know what's good for the
(l)users. Blocking new.net is, in fact, censorship, not a cost saving
> "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> > Yes, I was asking specifically about "stability" (with a request that
> > someone perhaps try to explain what that might mean other than a term to
> > scare people with) rather than "compatibility". BTW, I don't
> think ".house"
> > is a New.net TLD ;-)
More information about the NANOG