nanog mailing list archives

Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police

From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon () eiv com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 22:49:57 -0500

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:16:00PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:


problems with it. But, they will never get my business and I will never sign
such a contract unless there is no competitor with a different policy. In
the latter case, my next stop would be my attorney, regarding a restraint of
trade suit.


Then he'll send a letter, and they'll open the port, just like they
would have if you'd emailed them.

Only he'll charge you a couple of hundred dollars for it.

Ooooooo, what a smart businessman you are.

Attachment: _bin
Description:

Current thread:

RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Christian Kuhtz (Nov 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
  - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Adrian Chadd (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
  - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Valdis . Kletnieks (Nov 20)
  - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Shawn McMahon (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Roeland Meyer (Nov 20)
  - "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
    - Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Bora Akyol (Nov 20)
    - Re: "...the IPv4 TOS field should be end-to-end...." Joe Abley (Nov 21)
  - RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Jason Slagle (Nov 21)
  - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Stephen Sprunk (Nov 21)
- RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police Hank Nussbacher (Nov 20)
  - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police JIM FLEMING (Nov 20)
    - Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police Joe Abley (Nov 21)

(Thread continues...)