North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Sun Sep 14 13:27:31 2008
On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model":

It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with somebody they don't like, sometimes.

Probably?


For the industry as a whole to make a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor seems more legally risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.

"The industry as a whole"?

And who in their right minds considers Atrivo or InterCage a competitor? Are you upset at InterCage for lost child pr0n customers?


Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency, "act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?

You have been around more than long enough to know better than that Steve.

And you should be more consistent. Is this a US problem or an Internet problem?

--
TTFN,
patrick