Anybody on this list have any insights on the reports of Pirate Bay
unreachability?
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-blocked-the-pirate-bay-110512/
http://www.fastcompany.com/1752986/why-is-comcast-blocking-the-pirate-bay
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/12/is-comcast-blocking-the-pirate-bay/
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet
>> services. Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and
>> the definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the
>> FCC, as I note
Evidently this list is interested in telecommunications law. I was worried it
would be considered OT, but since people are talking about it, here are some
clarifications...
On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> They have been granted a mo
On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:45 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_wires447x625.jpg
>
> This is not the result of many different providers, it's the result of one
> provider stringing many lines to
00 p.m. (EST) Friday,
> December 17 through 6:00 a.m. (EST) Monday, December 20 for scheduled
> maintenance.
>
>
> :(
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Steve Schultze wrote:
>
> > That is a reasonable guess, but Level3's FCC filing yesterday spells
>
On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
>> I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect the
>> proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by
>> Level(3). In other words, if L(
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064625
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> George Bonser wrote:
>>> What I think George's
>>> comment
>>> does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
>>> such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
>>> public, whereas private constraints o
George Bonser wrote:
> What would any provider think if a city said "sure, you can have access
> to our residents' eyeballs. It will cost you $5 per subscriber per month".
> Would Comcast or anyone go for that?
Dave Temkin wrote:
> These are exactly what Franchise Agreements are for. Yes, cit
9 matches
Mail list logo
