Sprints definition on NAPs (question)

Wed May 1 19:48:41 UTC 1996

At 09:14 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>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?

Probably because they were peering with MCI before the policy, but thats
just a guess.

Justin Newton			* You have to change just to stay 
Internet Architect		*      caught up.
Erol's Internet Services	*