[8967] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Bad message address
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Dec 14 01:08:50 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 00:08:07 -0600 (CST)
I tried to reply to Norman @ Pagesat.com but the mail bounced. I think you
need to check your mailer. Thus, I'm posting here. His basic contention
was that any customer's traffic (including indirect ones) was agreed to
be routed. My response was:
> Not quite.
>
> The members will route other <member's> generated traffic. The definition
> of such a member is a customer of the member, or the member itself. Back-door
> arrangements are not part of that.
>
> --
> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
> Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
> Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
Let me add to that from a copy of the actual agreement right here. The
agreement does specify <direct> customers in saying that the traffic shall
be routed without discrimination (or settlement). It says that you <can>
allow indirect connectivity, but not that you <must>. That puts the onus
on the network provider to decide.
In point of fact that's an ugly clause. If you can prove that some number
of members colluded in going one way or the other, you might very well have
an anti-trust action unrelated to the CIX itself but still significantly
damning.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
