[asterisk-biz] European VoIP providers

[Christopher Bergström]

trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:

>On Sat, 2006-01-14 at 16:26 +0200, Christopher Bergström wrote:
>  
>
>>You're trying to be somewhat politically correct.. This takes away from 
>>the fun of it..
>>
>>    
>>
>I forgot my book of snappy insults :)  Plus sending an email with the
>intent to annoy is now illegal in america (it was a rider tacked onto a
>bill no one could really vote against - unclear if it will be enforced,
>but a felony for being anoying?  That is a bit much and possibly
>unconstitutional if not at least vague, there is no legal definition of
>'anoying').
>
>
>  
>
I love US law... It's so grand..  Anyhow, they can only enforce it 
within their boundaries and to those poor folks where they have a 
military presence.. Both circumstances I'd like to avoid..

>  
>
>>btw.. I'm highly considering forking this list and starting a moderated 
>>* biz list elsewhere.. I'll keep everyone posted/spammed of my 
>>intentions or contact me offlist with ideas/feedback.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>good luck with that, dunno how well forked lists work, people have tried
>for other reasons and those have never worked out well (specifically
>with the asterisk community).  And if you cause either too high of a
>delay or to ostrict of a moderation filter it may not be liked by enough
>people and that in itself causes problems.  
>  
>
I was planning to hand moderate and the real volume of this list is low 
enough to not be a burden at all.

>Also a note, if you plan on either having the list in the US or serving
>US people with the list research um ??? v Prodigy Networks sometime in
>the late 80s/very very early 90s.  There is another case, I want to say
>it involved Netcom with  the inverse results, but dont remember this was
>a case I studied back in 1992-1994 sometime when I was first starting to
>really study law.
>
>Prodigy had censored their lists, and then stopped.  3 months later
>while uncensored some trade secrets were posted.  Prodigy was found not
>guilty because they no longer moderated.  The courts decided that if you
>moderate you implicitly approve everything that gets through and you
>open yourself to a certain level of liability.  There was an inverse
>case that proved that part of it.
>
>The Church of Scientology v Netcom was a similar but not quite identical
>case where someone posted trade secrets (their brain washing techniques
>and such - at least CoS claimed that info was trade secret protected).
>Netcom refused to reveal the users true identity for the usenet posting
>and cancel that users account so they were found guilty (I think its an
>obscure ruling but meh).
>
>
>moderated lists can get you into trouble if you arent really careful :/
>At least in america - and the laws here generally apply to a list or
>service if there is one customer from here that is a subscriber.
>  
>
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#1 CoS.. If I even dare comment the hordes of minions may come upon my 
door.
(Is this truly a business list? I don't remember reading that my 
personal comments are completely unacceptable ;)

Anyhow, that is great info to have.. I'll consider it..  I suppose this 
is just another reason for me to move my servers to a country with more 
"sane" laws..

Anyone know where I can get quality colo
1/4 rack to 1/2 rack..
Minimum 20Mbit commit at 30USD per Mbit (or even close to this pricing)
PRI interconnect
Not within the US or territories and in Europe

C.