[2766] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nathan Stratton)
Wed May 1 09:34:09 1996
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:14:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nathan Stratton <nathan@netrail.net>
To: Jeremy Porter <jerry@fc.net>
cc: loco@MFST.COM, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199605010710.CAA20530@freeside.fc.net>
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?
