On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Jack Bates
wrote:
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
Hell, I remember back in '98 when it was triple digit, and not small values
at that. We've come a long way.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
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 pr
On 4/24/2014 11:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The fact there are "regulated monopolies" does not mean regulation
cannot be used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of
phrase to prove a point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad
argument. Yeah, the phrase "regulated monopoly" e
The fact there are "regulated monopolies" does not mean regulation cannot be
used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of phrase to prove a
point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad argument. Yeah, the phrase
"regulated monopoly" exists, therefore monopolies can't exist without
On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused.
I thin
Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also
telephone companies.
They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities.
Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to
capital costs and difficulty of easements?
-Kiriki Delany
--
On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon
wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there
is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting
R
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:01 , Everton Marques wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
>>>
>>> Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
>>
>> You
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
> >
> > Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
>
> You are confused.
>
I think Mr. Sheldon is pointing out th
On 4/24/2014 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopoli
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
>> monopoly.
>>
>> Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
>> (Capitalization is intentiona
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposit
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 ,
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
> I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
> Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
Wait; it should be a new type code message, so the header format/data
section can be different. And include
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-prote
ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:15 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: The FCC is
My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if
the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not
even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back
and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These
things take a while t
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to d
This thread pulled a good chuckle out of me... thanks guys :)
Bryan, cheers. :)
- Don
>>> Warren Bailey 04/24/14 9:21 AM >>>
Bryan is accepting bloody Mary donations this morning.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Jim Popovitch
Date: 04/24/20
Valdis, we will give you more time to read the entire post before
responding. That way you might not mislabel or misspeak as often. :-)
Bob Evans
CTO
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, "Bob Evans" said:
>> Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
>
> Spoken like a true oli
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
--Chris
I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans wrote:
> Gee whiz, why would any network have an issu
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, "Bob Evans" said:
> Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch. :)
pgpi7z4ivHaAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a
router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
customers, Cogent. Cogent the
We just had to do something similar for space that we had acquired in an
earlier incarnation of our company which was merged/renamed and it was a
straightforward process. We just had to provide some documentation. I found
the ARIN folk easy to work with on this.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:40 PM, O
Bryan is accepting bloody Mary donations this morning.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Original message
From: Jim Popovitch
Date: 04/24/2014 6:30 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Clayton Zekelman
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Phase 4.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Clayton Zekelma
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:54:16 -0400, Bryan Socha said:
> Icann is the mast 8 class as real?Distribute them
"Not Even Wrong" -- W. Pauli
pgpvkYUXpRipf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Alain Hebert wrote:
> Well,
>
> Sorry Bryan,
>
> Your post is just to awful to take seriously.
I think you mean 'too awful to take seriously'.
> How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is "Where's my money"TM
adam
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
> Can someone please check the NANOG mailing list Universal Translator? I
> think it is broken.
I think you mean a NANOG liver is broken.
-Jim P.
Can someone please check the NANOG mailing list Universal
Translator? I think it is broken.
At 01:54 AM 24/04/2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
arin.So a
* Donald Eastlake [2014-04-23 21:46]:
> The process for applying
> for MAC addresses under the IANA OUI was regularized in RFC 5342,
> since updated to and replaced by RFC 7042. See
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7042.txt. Perhaps you were trying
> before RFC 5342?
very possible.
As I have s
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge
content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff,
the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband
provider. If they
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Bryan Socha wrote:
Whats the big deal If your just arin, dont panic. Akamai and
digitalocean has been the only people aquire fair priced v4 putside
arin.So arin is ending. It doesnt stop anything. be smart 3 usd
per ip is fair if dirty. F the auct8on
Well,
Sorry Bryan,
Your post is just to awful to take seriously.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-99
> So arin is ending
no. their job is a registrar, a bookkeeping and information function.
some day they may get back to that.
randy
On 2014-04-24 10:29 , Michael DeMan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really should
> clean up whatever has been going on with so much spam hitting this mailing
> list.
>
>
> NO - I am complaining about people who post things I disagree with o
I take this back.
Spam I received was not via anybody sending to/from nanog@nanog.org but rather
directly to my subscribed e-mail address.
- Mike
On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:29 AM, Michael DeMan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really should
> cl
Hi All,
Sorry being a bit off-topic and having a boring subject, but we really should
clean up whatever has been going on with so much spam hitting this mailing list.
NO - I am complaining about people who post things I disagree with or on topics
I have little interest in, I am tired of the st
38 matches
Mail list logo
