On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 11:39:49AM -0700, Berkman, Scott wrote:
To me the only part of this that is up for argument is did SaidCom actually violate the contract and/or terms of use, and I certainly don't have enough information beyond that one article to make that decision. If someone else does please share with the group.
I will say that I've used Level(3) as a transit provider (not the only one, of course) at 2 different companies (both of which were / are pretty responsive to abuse complaints, in one case because I was the one responding to them), and I have never had an issue like this. However, both of these were content / hosting type setups, not ISPs who provide local Internet access, so the type of complaints (and probably the volume) were different than your typical ISP. I don't think there's any way to know for sure who screwed up here... maybe the small provider wasn't as responsive as they say they are, but are trying to shift the blame to (3). Or maybe (3) was trigger-happy. I don't think anyone from the outside has the information to tell for sure which happened. But Level(3) is a pretty big provider, and if they were just shutting off small competitors willy-nilly, I imagine we'd be hearing about it more. w
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:30 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property)
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151
Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive providers?
Frank