Good point Jeff. Sprint did get SOME inter regional connectivity money. For that they supposedly had to connect to ALL the NAPs (besides their own). they were supposed to make the connections a year ago. They were what 6 to 9 months late in connecting to Pac bell nap? So if they were supposed to use the services of the routing arbiter and appear to have renigged on this, what can anyone do?? Are they determined to make it painfully obvious for all to see that there are no enforcement teeth left at the NSF? Of course sprint is running a nap too. i understand that their position is that the NAP is full. They have a BUNCH of people trying to get into the NAP who are complaining to me that they get no answqers from sprint as to when that will be possible. ******************************************************************** Gordon Cook, Editor & Publisher Subscriptions: Individ-ascii $85 The COOK Report on Internet Individ. hard copy $150 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 Small Corp & Gov't $200 (609) 882-2572 Corporate $350 Internet: cook@cookreport.com Corporate Site Lic. $650 Web: http://pobox.com/cook/ Newly expanded COOK Report Web Pages ******************************************************************** On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 Jeff.Ogden@um.cc.umich.edu wrote:

The large scale provider MichNet uses is MCI and they are required to cooperate with the RA and others. This is in their contract. I suspect that something similar might be in some of the other contracts of providers that provide service to networks that received funding from NSF for Interregional Connectivity. People might want to go read the fine print in their contracts. -Jeff Ogden Merit/MichNet