Cogent/Level 3 depeering

Fri Oct 7 16:51:02 UTC 2005

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....

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 226 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20051007/1f23b07a/attachment.sig>