nanog mailing list archives
Re: Statements against new.net?
From: "Edward S. Marshall" <esm () logic net>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:55:26 -0600
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 12:30:19PM -0500, David Charlap wrote:
BUT if representatives from a dozen or a hundred ISPs meet together and choose to blackhole new.net for the explicit purpose of running them out of business, and then do so, they would be in violation of US anti-trust laws.
You mean, like the owners and operators of numerous core US networks getting together on an archived mailing list like this one, and openly discussing the idea of putting new.net out of business by various means (blackholing them, legally pressuring them, etc)? You're right, that might constitute violation of anti-trust law. :-) But what do I know? I'm no lawyer. -- Edward S. Marshall <esm () logic net> http://www.nyx.net/~emarshal/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. ]
Current thread:
- RE: Statements against new.net?, (continued)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathew Butler (Mar 13)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 13)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Stephen J. Wilcox (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Roeland Meyer (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathias Koerber (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? David Charlap (Mar 14)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mark Radabaugh - Amplex (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Edward S. Marshall (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Ron Snyder (Mar 15)
- RE: Statements against new.net? Mathias Koerber (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Marshall Eubanks (Mar 14)
- Re: Statements against new.net? Shawn McMahon (Mar 14)