[94573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Site Survey...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jan 25 15:40:37 2007
To: "Dwight A. Ernest" <dwight@rnkcom.com>
Cc: Robert Sherrard <rob@robsherrard.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:55 EST."
<45B909E3.90709@rnkcom.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:21:38 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1169756498_10768P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:49:55 EST, "Dwight A. Ernest" said:
> I don't see what "reasonable" has to do with it. If you don't like it,
> and you have a choice, vote with your pocketbook by taking your business
> elsewhere.
>
> If you don't have a choice, and your carrier knows it, then you have
> little recourse except where it might affect business elsewhere.
> I would use whatever stick or carrot I could,
Favorite stick: "Remember, we can turn off the telephones, electricity
and air conditioning in your NOC". :)
> but reasonableness only
> rarely enters into carrier business ethics.
It all depends on the definition of "reasonable" - remembering that the carrier
is likely a corporation, and thus has a duty to maximize profit, "reasonable"
means "worth a try to extract more revenue from the customer with little chance
of repercussions". It's similar to "ethics" when applied to lawyers - you may
dislike being on the losing end, but it's rare enough that lawyers violate
their code of ethics that it makes the news when it happens.
--==_Exmh_1169756498_10768P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFFuRFScC3lWbTT17ARAkmjAKCkEk/fmOvw1Kl1QQpB2KmfYlDm6gCgvFUt
1+o6knMmhPc0oyh27Y5dBu8=
=CaLc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1169756498_10768P--
