Re: Help us save usenet news for Time-Warner customers

Valued Cor****ate #120,345 Employee (B A R R Y) wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:10:24 -0400, daytripper
> <day_trippr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Reality check: this has precious little to do with anything that *any*
>> government agency - at *any* level - has had to say on the matter. It
was
>> merely a gold-plated excuse to enable something the large cable-company
ISPs
>> would have eventually done anyway. Now they can hang their virtual hats
on the
>> supposition that they're actually doing something "good". Which is BS.
>>
>> What this is all about is the large cable-company ISPs punting
something that
>> (a) provides zero income to them (no place to stick in-line
advertisements),
>> (b) costs them money to provide (whether their own infrastructure or
>> outsourced), and (c) actually competes with their business model (read:
folks
>> downloading content from usenet binary groups are less inclined to
"rent"
>> anything from cable-company OnDemand offerings).
>>
>> It's a no-brainer for Time-Warner and Verizon (and likely any other
>> large-but-faceless cable-company ISP) to get rid of the virtually
>> uncontrollable alt.* hierarchy. And that's the first shoe to drop...
> 
> Couldn't have said it better myself...

And in the process neatly sidestep any demented legislation that might 
sue them because some bozo in outer mongolia posts something abusive, or 
illegal on the US server on which it may end up.

I believe there is consuderabl child **** at least advertised via 
usenet, for example.

Given that this makes them no money, and may render them liable for a 
hefty fine, why should they spend man hours deleting and monitoring it?