[32151] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: MCI WORLDCOM TO PAY $3.5 MILLION
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Sun Nov 12 21:36:14 2000
Date: 12 Nov 2000 18:34:17 -0800
Message-ID: <20001113023417.810.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: mark-list@mentovai.com
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 12 November 2000, "Mark Mentovai" wrote:
> But these problems were corrected, no? The point I'm trying to make is that
> these operators don't make any additional profits by doing the wrong thing
> and then fixing it (as they did, unless someone can point to instances in
> which brokenness wasn't fixed after it was brought to their attention) than
> by doing the right thing from the start (verifying announcements, etc.)
> The way I see it, aside from the extra time and "hassle" involved in doing
> it right, doing it wrong and doing it right are the same in the bookkeeper's
> eyes.
After blackholing one of my customer routes for 72 hours, Sprint finally
fixed it. The customer believing it was my problem, and the Sprint sales
person who mysteriously showed up on the customer's doorsteep following
the incident selling how much more reliable buying directly from Sprint
would be, decided it would be in their interest to buy from a bigger network
such as Sprint.
So, yes, they do make more money by disrupting the operations of small ISPs.
Do they do it on purpose? I don't believe they are organized enough to do
it on purpose. Is it in their interest to fix it? No.
