[109126] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs r
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Wed Nov 5 18:01:52 2008
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: surfer@mauigateway.com
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 23:01:33 +0000
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Have we yet had a peering war that was genuinely international, i.e. the =
partition was between net X in country Y and net Z in country W? Rather =
than between X's Y and Z's Y divisions, which wd both be in Y =
jurisdiction?
- original message -
Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs =
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer@mauigateway.com>
Date: 05/11/2008 10:47 pm
--- herrin-nanog@dirtside.com wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the =
United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.
---------------------------------------------
Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be =
regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network? For my part, =
this is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red =
herring). It is a valid question with operational impact.
scott
