Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

HavenCo In Trouble?

Posted by timothy on from the naysayers-revenge dept.

Evil Al writes "News.com is reporting on the talk given by Ryan Lackey, former CTO of HavenCo, at DefCon. Lackey claims that the company is teetering on the edge due to internal upheaval and lack of customers. Oh, and 9/11, of course."

7 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. i think... by jeffy124 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...it's the more the fact the company only had a whopping six customers.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  2. It was only a matter of time... by joshv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These guys never had a workable business plan to begin with. They were selling bandwidth at a huge premium over what it costs just a few miles away in the UK. If you are able to pay that much, you are probably doing something illegal to begin with, and HavenCo won't host you.

    This was a solution looking for a problem that never materialized. The idea certainly captured the imagination of slashdotters though.

    -josh

    1. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the article specifically states that the reason Lackey decided to leave HavenCo was because the Sealand "royal family" would not allow them to host a web site that would allow streaming copyrighted movies.

      It is also mentioned that Sealand does not allow the hosting of any activity that violates international law or can be connected to terrorism, so there goes your mobile nuclear bomb.

      Did you happen to read the article?

    2. Re:It was only a matter of time... by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they will host everything not forbidden by Sealand's law

      The only problem is that Sealand's Law is whatever their "Crown Prince" says it is. As quoted from the linked article:

      During an interview with the BBC, the family said it would readily "turn customer information over to the authorities if there was any serious problem with our stuff," Lackey said
      So no matter what the AUP may say, the real "terms of service," like the law in general in Sealand, is whatever their "ruling family" says it is. Companies like stable governments. They do not want to take risks dealing with governments that change the way they do business in a rapid manner. With this latest change, Sealand has become no different than any other jurisdiction in which internet service is offered. As a result, they can only compete on price, and with cheaper prices and more reliable service elsewhere, companies will skip over Sealand.

      Also from the article:

      Lackey ... said another problem was the Sealand family's tinkering with the network connection

      No company will want anything to do with any government touching their connectivity in such an arbitrary manner, especially when they are paying a premium for Internet Access whose claim to fame is that they "don't do that." Another thing Lackey mentioned was Sealand's attempt to tax its customers. That is another example of a bait-and-switch tactic which will drive away existing business and scare away future customers.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
    3. Re:It was only a matter of time... by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only problem is that Sealand's Law is whatever their "Crown Prince" says it is.

      Sealand's law is whatever the British Government will let them get away with. A frigate's detachment of Marines could re-occupy the platform in minutes without breaking a sweat. The Crown Prince is tolerated because Britain has a tradition of tolerating eccentrics so long as they don't harm anyone. If Sealand were to declare that it was willing to break British laws wholesale, bearing in mind that it is strategically located, it would rapidly - and perhaps physically - cease to exist.

  3. poltiics? by freedommatters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The key lesson on this is if you're going to put a 'co-lo' facility somewhere, political and contract stability in that jurisdiction is very important" er, yes, and i thought the political aspect was meant to be one of the main selling points, ie, it wasn't governed by the UK. perhaps they should have sorted that one out before they tried to make their billions. surely they are just a very late casualty of the dot.com bubble?

    --
    All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights
  4. no solution to legal responsibilities by mblase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "gimmick" for this business was that they could host sites outside of one's own country, thus protecting one from legal liability for the content. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it demonstrated that the legal responsibility for content on a web site lies with the site's owner, not the hosting provider, and thus the owner would be held responsible under the laws of the country where he lived?