QWest internet & the 1996 Telecom Act

• Previous message (by thread): Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
• Next message (by thread): FC: RIAA presses Verizon for name of peer-to-peer subscriber (was: Verision being sued?)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[Searching the NANOG archives, I haven't found this topic yet]



Can anyone confirm either of the following:

  -the 1996 Telecom Act restricts baby bells from exchanging internet
   traffic directly to each other.

  -that any other baby bell besides QWest is claiming this restriction.


The new QWest addition to our internet feeds is restricted to their 14
state operating region.  Traffic outside of the region has to traverse
qwest.net, then tamerica.net, then uswest.net before it gets out.

Personally, I do not see where in the 96TA restrictions apply to internet
traffic - only to long distance.  It feels to me they are using this to
pressure FCC/PSC leadership.  QWest's [271] filing to have 4 of their 14
states join long-distance suggests their 'regional' network will be
getting even smaller.


---
Andy Dalrymple
XMission Telecom Mgr.						(8/21/02)

• Previous message (by thread): Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all ISPs?
• Next message (by thread): FC: RIAA presses Verizon for name of peer-to-peer subscriber (was: Verision being sued?)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]