[85315] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Oct 7 12:51:33 2005
To: JC Dill <lists05@equinephotoart.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:54:37 PDT."
<43460D9D.3080009@equinephotoart.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:51:02 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_1128703862_3264P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:54:37 PDT, JC Dill said:
> I also believe that Cogent has a valid argument that Level 3's behavior
> is anti-competitive in a market where the tier 1 networks *collectively*
> have a 100% complete monopoly on the business of offering transit-free
> backbone internet services. As such, L3's behavior might fall into
> anti-trust territory
Please enumerate the tier 1 networks who comprise this collective monopoly.
Seriously.
Somehow, although civil lawsuits do occasionally name John Does when the actual
name is expected to be revealed during pre-trial discovery (usually when the
action is known, but the person isn't, as in "John Doe, the upper manager in
Sales who authorized the tortable activity"), I don't see much hope for a
lawsuit claiming abuse of a monopoly when you can't name who is a member up
front....
--==_Exmh_1128703862_3264P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFDRqd2cC3lWbTT17ARAiPYAKDcpRM08OGLMefxt7H9w6WZhV7JaACgrRQ7
dXkhV50lDxXiJWyYkUvnXsY=
=8fLr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1128703862_3264P--
