"Sqwertz" <swertz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:150708.210359afb+af+ag2.718@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tutall <tutall@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > Really don't think it was the laywers, the suits are just hiding
> > behind that to save money, (and potential hassle), it's a win win for
> > them, they're pissing off only a small minority of their users.
>
> In AT&T's case, it's wasn't a money-saving issue. They have exactly
> one person (Tom I.) maintaining the whole news server farm for the
> whole country. He's still employed and doing what he's always done.
> His job just got easier, but he doesn't get paid any less.
>
> Roadrunner, OTOH, was a big money-saver for them. They shut off all
> of Usenet and don't have to pay to outsource it.
>
> In a way, I can see how hosting kiddie **** on your company servers
> might be frowned upon. But that's no reason to shut off all of
> alt.binaries.*. It's the suits that just don't get it.
>
I get my usenet via att's uverse (news.houston.sbcglobal.net) and it still
has the alt.binaries.food -- not too many others (there are a few that
misspelled "binaries" that are stll there)
|
