nanog mailing list archives
Re: Comments
From: Stephen Wolff <steve () nsf gov>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 12:08:58 -0500 (EDT)
IMHO - this is not my employers opinion - some guidelines might be in order. I suggest the following (excuse the style here - just trying to be as unambiguous as possible): . . . . . . NSF has made it clear that it does not want to be in the regulatory business. But if larger providers attempt unfair settlements something like this might be neccesary. Perhaps some other government entity might end up stepping in. We can only hope that things just work out or that NSF is at least asked for advise before any regulation is attempted.
NSF is not contemplating guidelines. We hope the industry will evolve something better than N**2. If predatory practice becomes evident, we'll be happy to arbitrate. If anti-competitive behavior emerges, we'll be happy to remind those disadvantaged of their rights under existing law. -s - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: Comments Tim Salo (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Bill Manning (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Joseph W. Stroup (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Bill Manning (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Bill Manning (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Milo S. Medin (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Martin Lee Schoffstall (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Comments Joseph W. Stroup (Aug 31)
- Re: Comments Steve Schnell, Sprint Corporation (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Dave Sincoskie (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Curtis Villamizar (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Stephen Wolff (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Martin Lee Schoffstall (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Stephen Wolff (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Curtis Villamizar (Sep 01)
- Re: Comments Matt Mathis (Sep 02)
- Re: Comments Curtis Villamizar (Sep 02)
- Comments Tony Li (Sep 02)