pagans@texoma.net principle #3

At 06:44 PM 7/4/97 +0100, Jeff Williams wrote:
>  And hence, in that they are under federal jurisdiction, your above
>argument is rendered moot.

First, let me say that Eric is off to receive a Lady Liberty Award for
providing on the job training to Texas Attorney General Morales regarding
the Electronic Privacy Communications Act.   TX AG Morales issued an
improper subpoena which violated ECPA when he sought to obtain email
transactions for a ROT (Republic of Texas) member who had an account at
Internet Texoma.  I don't speak for him and I'm not a lawyer, just a
businessman who founded an ISP.

To your point, maybe right, maybe wrong - let's postulate what "compelling
reasons" a federal judge might find to allow NSI to continue the
anti-competitive, anti-trust, monopolistic actions.

1. Randy says the routers will fall over and destroy the Internet.
----- Rebuttal:  Tony Bates' CIDR report indicates there is plenty of
wasted space in the router tables to accommodate those seeking globally
routable /19 CIDR blocks. 

2. We're out of IPv4 space.
----- Rebuttal: See IETF (Bill Manning's ?) remarks which put Class B
utilization at 1.5% in Japan;  ad nauseam.

Jump in here and add the third thru nth "compelling reason(s)" acceptable
to a federal judge.