Thanks for pointing that out.
RB
On 4/12/2010 2:06 PM, Stonix Farstone wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett
<[1]rich...@bennett.com> wrote:
One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about
myself that I never knew before, especially
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about myself
> that I never knew before, especially regarding my occupation. For the last 9
> months or so I've been working part-time with a Washington think tank in an
> analy
On Apr 12, 2010, at 1:05 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
You're speculating that ITIF gets funding from Comcast, and therefore
If only the ITIF released information about their funding sources.
So, does Comcast contribute funds or otherwise sponsor ITIF?
Does Google, Intel, or Microsoft?
Cheers
You're speculating that ITIF gets funding from Comcast, and therefore
guessing I'm singing Comcast's song. But you don't know whether Comcast
actually is an ITIF sponsor, just as you don't know whether Google,
Intel, and Microsoft are ITIF sponsors. And then you're speculating
again
On Apr 12, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about myself
>> that I never knew before, especially regarding my occupation. For the last 9
>> months or so I've been working
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about myself
> that I never knew before, especially regarding my occupation. For the last 9
> months or so I've been working part-time with a Washington think tank in an
> analy
On 4/12/10 2:42 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> ... the guy who wrote the first IEEE 802 standard for
> Ethernet over twisted pair ...
I'm certain that's who you are. Hell, what I do for CORE means I'm a
ICANN lobbyist when I'm not writing code, and I'd prefer to be the guy
who wrote XPG/1 and XPG/4.
One of the things I like about e-mail lists is learning things about
myself that I never knew before, especially regarding my occupation. For
the last 9 months or so I've been working part-time with a Washington
think tank in an analyst capacity, not as a lobbyist, and not on the
Comcast payrol
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Paul WALL wrote:
> It should probably be noted, for purpose of establishing bias, that
> Richard is a Washington lobbyist, hired to represent Comcast on
> regulatory matters. What he views as overstepping legal bounds,
> others may view as protecting consumers...
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> The FCC is structured in such a way that the chairman calls all the shots on
> policy matters. In this instance, the former chairman, Kevin Martin, was
> responsible for the Comcast order but the current chairman, Julius
> Genachowski, had
The FCC is structured in such a way that the chairman calls all the
shots on policy matters. In this instance, the former chairman, Kevin
Martin, was responsible for the Comcast order but the current chairman,
Julius Genachowski, had to defend it in court. Some wags insist that the
defense was
On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:04 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I believe you are doing a disservice to the FCC by making these inflammatory
> statements.
And here I thought I was defending them for being different & better than the
last group.
The point is, joe asked about the FCC that made a ruling. The s
Yawn.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Larry Sheldon
wrote:
On 4/10/2010 09:19, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
Please, let's keep this off the NANOG list! I am already on a
politically oriented forum.
Got it.
On 4/10/2010 09:19, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
> Please, let's keep this off the NANOG list! I am already on a
> politically oriented forum.
Got it. It is OK to make accusations, but not OK to challenge them.
My apologies.
--
S
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
>
>> I would characterize the US as a first rate military and economic
>> power, but a third rate place to live.
>
> What are the net emigration rates by country?
>
> What are the net "medical tourism" rates by country?
>
> What ar
On 4/10/2010 06:36, Roderick Beck wrote:
> I would characterize the US as a first rate military and economic
> power, but a third rate place to live.
What are the net emigration rates by country?
What are the net "medical tourism" rates by country?
What are the net disaster charity rates by cou
On 4/9/2010 16:22, joe mcguckin wrote:
> Let me see if I understand this correctly.
>
> People are defending the FCC?
After looking at who they elect, why does that surprise?
>
> The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
> not "Information Service" and thus came
On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, joe mcguckin wrote:
>
>> Let me see if I understand this correctly.
>>
>> People are defending the FCC?
>>
>> The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband,
>> not "Information Serv
udges.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
>> Sent: Tue 4/6/2010 7:40 PM
>> To: Patrick W. Gilmore
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comc
On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network
> Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
The FCC has a definition of sorts, in terms of its six principles. Page three
of
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_B
ct: Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast
>
>
>> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast>
>>
>> Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
>>
. Gilmore
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast>
>
> Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
>
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> They are now using the phrase "Open
> Internetworking" to describe their stance on the issue.
How very sensible of ISOC.
--
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 08:21, Mark Smith
wrote:
> So, there's the problem. According to the above, I'm both for, and
> against, Network Neutrality.
>
> One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against
> Network Neutrality is defining exactly what it is.
ISOC has gone a step
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 11:30:16 -0400
"Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote:
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast>
>
> Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
>
It seems to me th
> <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast>
>
> Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
>
Between that and the ACTA foolishness .. seems to be a good time to get
into the VPN busines
<http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/90747-fcc-dealt-major-blow-in-net-neutrality-ruling-favoring-comcast>
Seems on-topic, even though policy related.
--
TTFN,
patrick
27 matches
Mail list logo