[51022] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeff S Wheeler)
Mon Aug 19 12:11:58 2002
From: Jeff S Wheeler <jsw@five-elements.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3D6112C2.9DB59CDA@delong.sj.ca.us>
Date: 19 Aug 2002 12:11:24 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:46, Owen DeLong wrote:
*snip*
> Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set
> the
> destination IP address for the content. The intervening backbones don't
> do
> that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are
> modified
> to send it along it's way. The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the
> originator of the communication. There are two hosts which could be
> argued
> to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the
> conversation.
> The routers in between do not meet the test.
If this is the basis of your argument, multicast backbones would be a
legal liability. How about a 1-800 conference circuit? The concept is
the same, as is the level of content participation. The difference is
the legal protection offered to the voice common-carrier is greater than
what is offered to IP carriers.
--
Jeff S Wheeler jsw@five-elements.com
Software Development Five Elements, Inc
http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/
