From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from jabiru.ens-lyon.fr (jabiru.ens-lyon.fr [140.77.51.2]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F9221F27E for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2014 23:14:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jabiru.ens-lyon.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8181EB0F2 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:14:30 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at ens-lyon.fr Received: from jabiru.ens-lyon.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (jabiru.ens-lyon.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vM3J_mzCEyFX for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:14:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (244.208.24.109.rev.sfr.net [109.24.208.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by jabiru.ens-lyon.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81EB5A3B69 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:14:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:14:25 +0900 From: Baptiste Jonglez To: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: <20140626061425.GB4735@ens-lyon.fr> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [Bloat] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BCerowrt-devel=5D_Dave_T=E4ht_quoted_in_?= =?iso-8859-1?q?the_ACLU_blog?= X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:14:33 -0000 --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:45:15PM -0700, Dave Taht wrote: > I didn't make any points about competitiveness either; that was robert's = piece. >=20 > For the record: >=20 > I oppose the time warner merger, and also oppose rules and regulations > that prevent municipalities from running their own fiber and allowing > providers to compete on top of it. In fact I strongly, strongly favor > the latter. I came very close to writing a letter to the FCC on that, > but didn't. Well, some people in the US are doing just that: http://muninetworks.org/ http://muninetworks.org/communitymap And elsewhere, too: https://www.diyisp.org/ --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJTq7pBAAoJEGB4mfgsWgTWnBUQAJfA6A6e7xbwQcw7INBP96oj IiMlf0zGLhwOGYyKg3eQvlLjvmYlY6y0Pm3jRwi2b/9wJVRff/XSTN62dOloT4PC bzc9Q94c85aEsOxunqiWf7kQnzs5KxrC9uQmF1s/jo3CALNVp6tRJBjSNY+aoCh7 zyF68sv0XI+d+CGHOZMkpxyYkNn0v3cx6gEK8NlP6xdpFLx/wO+XghK8IYaOrZ+s iVQJP6roLxCfY/eTXWTWP5/E5S0QBTFWGevgW9JAfq2Pp9GABJwxlwfNvqo5lQXm ykVFKZo/XBeHATDa0pEOJOssywLi+DB/t0YxhZiT0Eq4VyuM/Tntb+ZIuK6u5W3J pJWD3cEcUpfmffLIXFvvPpYLa9Ra5/XEVRmyGCPoynZOtafDAshCf3PJr5ssOZaO y6mjNDhQfZ9OMmuYrxQmW+wce/Y1okyRuXZNsPhivdPyrJZLq670+k/BW8DQc/pY OIaMWtY45CKMVmanQBfyp1s0U20kZXoYg/RNKb++SjZJMdg8vQEEHXQZCpEFxwcM 2Dq0cVN5KFhn4188e519Oe2coN6UXBdg0CjiiD4qRwHMhSEFMO8T+99YlN88MOOe SbVlmsNdVK3GAJJEoZbPQlIJcItWpsv3kERKlOHLPyeXha5TvgqIv7RrduYr98KK q/5bd8cRJT2/N+LxTY9F =0zRj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --eJnRUKwClWJh1Khz--