nanog mailing list archives
Re: Equal access to content
From: Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 04:07:14 -1000
the two year window is far too low given the sbc ceo's recent public statements on the use of his wires by google and the like.Should content suppliers be required to provide equal access to all networks? Or can content suppliers enter into exclusive contracts?
the content providers are not common carriers whose irreplacable access to the customer prem was subsidized by public funding and protection. and perhaps we should be declaring our employment affiliations. mine is iij, a large japanese/asian non-carrier isp with some service in the us, plus various consulting gigs, none for content providers. randy
Current thread:
- SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Daniel Golding (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Equal access to content Sean Donelan (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Christopher L. Morrow (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Blaine Christian (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Doug Barton (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Andy Davidson (Nov 03)
- Re: Equal access to content Christian Kuhtz (Nov 03)
- Equal access to content Sean Donelan (Nov 02)
- Re: Equal access to content Mike Leber (Nov 03)
- Re: Equal access to content Mike Leber (Nov 03)
- Re: Equal access to content Randy Bush (Nov 03)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Randy Bush (Nov 02)
- Re: SBC/AT&T + Verizon/MCI Peering Restrictions Randy Bush (Nov 02)