On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact
you have NO RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not
a right. You responded with: "If I have either a peering
agreement ... then that contract supports my 'rights' under that
contract persuant to my responsibilities being fulfilled." Then
you posted this contract as an example of those "rights". From the
contract you claim to be "a great model":
It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry
not under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business
with somebody they don't like, sometimes.
Probably?
For the industry as a whole to make a group decision to not do
business with somebody who may be a competitor seems more legally
risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting some good
legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.
"The industry as a whole"?
And who in their right minds considers Atrivo or InterCage a
competitor? Are you upset at InterCage for lost child pr0n customers?
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US
providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has
now been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the
emergency, "act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing
be a law enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?
You have been around more than long enough to know better than that
Steve.
And you should be more consistent. Is this a US problem or an
Internet problem?
--
TTFN,
patrick