[32467] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: ISPs as content-police or method-police
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Wed Nov 22 14:06:24 2000
Message-ID: <47FE39302BF73B4C93BC84B87341282C1F47@condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Shawn McMahon' <smcmahon@eiv.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:56:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
You missed the point. The filters were removed the moment we were able to
get a suitably authorized NOC tech (next morning). That didn't change the
fact that I incurred losses from paying three expensive contractors, for a
full night of over-time, as a direct result of the unannounced filter. The
contractors got paid, how do I recover the losses caused by the contract
breach? The upstream refuses, therefore we must go to court.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn McMahon [mailto:smcmahon@eiv.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 7:20 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: ISPs as content-police or method-police
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 02:12:38PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> >
> > engineers doing this when it could have been prevented? I
> have. Three
> > contractors, doing this, in over-time, at Silicon-Valley
> rates is well over
> > $20K. More than enough to make it worth my while to sue my upstream.
>
> And did you sue, or did you request the filter be removed?
>
> You stated earlier in this thread that what you would do, and what
> anyone reasonable would do, is immediately call their lawyer.
>
> Did you call him first, or did you contact the upstream first?
>
>
