Hey!
New message, please read <http://ibew1003.org/all.php?m>
Nick B
Having worked for several departments like this, I can assure you her
flustsration was not about her inability to hire competent people or the
lack of her superiors to prioritize the modernization project. Unless you
have worked for the Federal Government it's almost impossible to understand
the
At no point does that spec say a single thing about speed. The closest
part I could find was Upstream data rate 1.244Gbps, but I think it's
pretty clear that that is the link speed, not the actual data rate. It's
worth wringing them out over the issue, maybe you can shame them into
taking the
Will applications without a cancelled check for at least 100k in
donations be considered?
Nick
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote:
https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/379628100
Job Title:Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet)
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you
throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
for a while.
- Kevin
On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Nick B
n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then
you
throttled them. I'm sorry
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us
to refuse to upgrade full peers?
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest
, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow
us to refuse to upgrade full peers?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to
constrain
Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the omg it costs a
lot theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the
FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to
keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE
ALREADY
it.
Of course I don't have any proof, but the rest of your points may not be
far off the mark.
At 09:44 AM 12/05/2014, Nick B wrote:
Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the omg it costs a
lot theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the
FCC because
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double
dipping.
Nick
On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent
advertising.
Nick
On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net
wrote:
* mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014,
Ah, I needed *another* reason to murder WOL in it's sleep. Thanks!
Nick
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
WOL uses 100Mb/s, the phy draws less that way.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:13, Charles N Wyble charles-li...@knownelement.com
I thought the modern measure was hours and dollars wasted... Err I mean
spent.
Nick
On Jun 12, 2013 5:21 AM, Joel M Snyder joel.sny...@opus1.com wrote:
Do you have any actual evidence that a .edu of (say) 2K employees
is statistically *measurably* less secure than a .com of 2K employees?
I'd love to, but American Idle is on in 5 minutes. Maybe next time?
Nick
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ishmael Rufus sakam...@gmail.com wrote:
So when are we rioting?
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Tax payer money.. :)
On 6/7/13, Mark
The Nonfunctional side is critical for the LPI obsessed C?O demographic,
and is therefor mandatory for most products.
I wish I didn't know that.
Nick
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz h...@netcases.netwrote:
On 12/23/2012 7:44 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 23 December 2012
I seriously doubt many TOR exit nodes have the political clout to be
considered a common carrier.
In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's
safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection.
Nick
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jordan Michaels
, but that's not the current text of the
law. YMMV
Nick B
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Roland Perry
li...@internetpolicyagency.com wrote:
In article 596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A15**5ea09c8c...@rwc-mbx1.corp.**
seven.com596b74b410ee6b4ca8a30c3af1a155ea09c8c...@rwc-mbx1.corp.seven.com,
George
18 matches
Mail list logo
