Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land

William Allen Simpson william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Tue Jan 29 17:21:13 UTC 2013


On 1/29/13 8:30 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 1/29/2013 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>> The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal
>> government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.
>
> I never said there wasn't graft and corruption in private industry...
> but that is anecdotal... "hit and miss". In contrast, graft and
> corruption in the Federal Government is widespread and rampant. Finding
> one example of graft and corruption in private industry is a silly way
> to try to disprove my point.
>
Actually, "graft and corruption in the Federal Government" is very
rare.  State and local government is more common, and the Feds are
usually needed to clean up afterward.  Note the Kwame Kilpatrick
public corruption trial (a big deal around here)....

And of course, corruption is incredibly common in the private
sector, notably the financial services industry, the realty
developer industry, etc.


>> Ummm, none of these were on the FCC.  Some were on the "stacked"
>> Republican F*E*C.  And nobody trusts Spakovsky, the architect of
>> voter caging, purges, and suppression -- who was (as we now know)
>> illegally recess appointed to the FEC, and whose nomination was
>> withdrawn after disclosure of conflict of interest and the
>> resignation of half the Justice Department voter section staff!
>
> I think you've gone off topic here. The bottom line is that the FCC of
> the past few years has TRIED to make a crusade out of supposedly
> protecting us against those meany ISPs' allegedly unfair bandwidth
> allocation practices... with their proposed solution of "net
> neutrality"... but, in reality, "net neutrality" is really just a
> Federal Government power grab where they can then trample the 4th
> amendment.

Huh?  You cited a WSJ opinion piece as from the FCC, when it was FEC,
and they are very different entities.  Yet you claim I'm off-topic?

Net Neutrality has nothing what-so-ever to do with the 4th Amendment.


> Why would they do that? Because the current administration is
> crawling with statist thugs, that is why. They can't help themselves. it
> is in their blood. (notice that I'm NOT defending the Republican
> administration FCC, nor do I care to.

You seem very confused, and have devolved into ill-informed racist
anti-Obama diatribe that has no place on this list.


> Your example is besides the point
> and not relevant to this conversation. But the attempted "net
> neutrality" power grab is relevant. Notice ALSO that neither do I defend
> all practices of ISPs' bandwidth allocations. But, again, their
> customers do have the option to "vote with their wallets". Such options
> are lost with a Federal Gov't monopoly.)
>
The Internet was developed by the Federal Government.  I started my
first TCP/IP implementation in 1979 on a NOAA+EPA grant; I wrote the
legislative boilerplate that provided funding for the NSFnet, and
convinced Michigan legislators to support it; then went on to write
many technical standards; and built an ISP starting in 1994.

The NSFnet wouldn't have been possible without a Federal prosecution,
and the resulting AT&T Green decision.

With today's oligopolies, there's no way to vote with your wallet.

I'm done with this thread.  Please don't feed the troll.




More information about the NANOG mailing list