The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Fri Apr 25 23:36:30 UTC 2014
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse.
I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we would all be better off without?
On Apr 25, 2014, at 18:47 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net> wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon at cox.net>
>>> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
>>>> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG
>>>> does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to
>>>> NANOG doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread
>>>> is pretty non-operational now.
>>> In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly
>>> that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
>> I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
>> Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
> "OK, so you are a troll.
> Microsoft is among the most heavily protected-by-regulation companies I
> can think of.
> Have you ever seen their patent collection? Can you guess at the size
> of their infringement-enforcement staff? Do you have any idea how many
> court-room hours are spent each day protecting their monopoly?"
> Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
> of System Administrators:
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
> learn from their mistakes.
> (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the NANOG