[14110] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Private interconnects
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sat Nov 29 22:26:36 1997
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 21:06:24 -0600
From: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net>
To: "David S. Holub" <holub@vix.com>
Cc: Alan Hannan <hannan@bythetrees.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.971129172450.2890A-100000@bb.rc.vix.com>; from David S. Holub on Sat, Nov 29, 1997 at 06:01:41PM -0800
I agree. The DOJ ought to start looking at this to determine if anti-trust
laws are being violated.
I believe that they are and have been for quite some time.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin
http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Sat, Nov 29, 1997 at 06:01:41PM -0800, David S. Holub wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Nov 1997, Alan Hannan wrote:
>
> > Anyone that does definitively know, is likely to be covered under
> > MNDA such that legally they couldn't tell you, anyway.
>
> Which is exactly the problem and why the DOJ and other regulators should
> be concerned/informed. The Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreements to which you
> refer Alan are not intended to to protect 'Proprietary Information' (i.e.
> inventions and trade secrets) but rather to inhibit the First Amendment
> Rights of many of these ISPs. The effect is to virtually eliminate good
> faith bargaining between these carriers (that have used or continue to use
> this MNDA vehicle) and the rest of the Internet which in turn allows for
> highly discriminatory interconnection based on the theory that they can
> squelch the reporting of it with the threat of disconnection, litigation
> or both.
>
> Seems to be working too - for now.
>
> --david
>
