On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=na...@bakker.net>wrote:
> * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]: > > Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure >> it would raise costs, as that testing and validation >> wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to >> pay an additional $10/month on our service to be >> sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least >> to ensure that what was promised was scaled down >> to match what could actually be delivered. >> > > Nice strawman you erected there. > > Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :) Now it's time for people to take turns poking holes in it. ^_^ Thanks! >> > > Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers > hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers. > I'm not so much standing up for them as pointing out that simply calling for additional oversight and regulation often brings increased costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money comes from to pay for government verification of industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my weak search-fu, however, and some person with more knowledge on the subject will be able to shed light on how such validation and compliance testing is typically paid for. > > -- Niels. > > Thanks! Matt