|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
At 09:14 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote: >On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote: > >> >|} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves). These types of problems can be quite >> >|} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages. >> >> Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong. >> >> There are very real engineering reasons for not peering >> if someone is at one NAP/MAE. Also since Sprint and MCI >> do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them >> they could get sued for discriminating against some competators >> (not all, makes a big legal difference). > >Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with >MCI and are at only 1 NAP? Probably because they were peering with MCI before the policy, but thats just a guess. Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|