At 09:14 AM 5/1/96 -0400, you wrote:

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?

Probably because they were peering with MCI before the policy, but thats just a guess. Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay Internet Architect * caught up. Erol's Internet Services *