Re: Sprints definition on NAPs (question)

[Nathan Stratton <nathan () netrail net>]

On Wed, 1 May 1996, Jeremy Porter wrote:

> > |} > the Sherman Act (if memory serves).  These types of problems can be quite
> > |} > nasty, involving treble punitive damages.
>
> Unfortunately for Nathan, this above is wrong.
>
> There are very real engineering reasons for not peering
> if someone is at one NAP/MAE.  Also since Sprint and MCI
> do have published policies, if they made exceptions to them
> they could get sued for discriminating against some competators
> (not all, makes a big legal difference).

Ok, so what about Interpath, CAIS, and a bunch more that are peering with
MCI and are at only 1 NAP?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -