Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

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....

Attachment: _bin
Description: