Re: Level 3's side of the story

[Michael Loftis <mloftis () wgops com>]

--On October 7, 2005 7:13:45 PM -0400 William Allen Simpson 
<wsimpson () greendragon com> wrote:

> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/1
> > 0-07-2005/0004164041&EDATE=
> >
> > "On October 6, Level 3, as it had repeatedly advised Cogent it would,
> > terminated free traffic exchange with Cogent.  Because Internet users,
> > apparently without notice from Cogent and through no fault of their own,
>
> I don't remember seeing this public notice from Level(3) posted....
> Wouldn't that be "without notice from Level(3)"?

Why is it (3)'s responsibility to handle Cogent's customers?  It isn't.  If 
that was the case we'd be required to notify all downstream's when we 
terminate on default of contract or other reasons (as an ISP).

No I think if (3) told Cogent then they did their job.  It's absurd to say 
that (3) was responsible for public notice of Cogent's customers or 
anything of that nature.  That's a Cogent internal matter that they screwed 
up, or intentionally withheld.