Anonymous ID: b8a23d June 30, 2020, 2:17 p.m. No.9804069   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4096

>>9804051

They and I are talking about a specific set of symptoms that we have seen before, which intermittently go away, and then come back again.

Presumably the symptoms indicate the site is under heavier-than-normal DDoS attack.

Anonymous ID: b8a23d June 30, 2020, 2:55 p.m. No.9804431   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9804243

>>9804274

Although the order appears to be no more than a slap on the wrist, I think it has real teeth.

1) It makes other telecom equipment more cost effective compared to Huawei and ZTE - companies would have to segregate the Universal Service Fee funds and not use it when guying Huawei/ZTE gear

 

Bigger IMO:

2) If I were a telecomms engineering manager, I would have to think twice about deploying ANY Huawei/ZTE equipment in my infrastructure. Because now it becomes a business risk. There is a distinct possibility FCC might in the future mandate it be ripped out. You don't go to all the trouble and expense of purchasing telecomm gear and deploying it and programming it and training your staff on it, if there's a risk all this work will go down the drain in the future. You pick some other gear that you have more confidence will have longevity.

Anonymous ID: b8a23d June 30, 2020, 3:05 p.m. No.9804538   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4548

>>9804503

It was a larp before.

We will not fall for the larp again.

If Q wants to indicate support for TCH then Q will, and then anons will pay attention.

Until then, we will not be dragged down that rabbit hole again.

It hurt our credibility.

A lot.

 

Bring sauce, proof, and anons will consider it.