Sprint has its fair share of cheating customers, peers, and even competitors. It's a phone company, that's what they do. I dare say this situation is entirely their fault. They created the link with only the intention of getting money from cogent, not to create settlement free peering (purely speculation).
Why should Cogent have a secondary route, but not Sprint? After all, Cogent's customers weren't the ones hurting, it was Sprint's customers. Where was Sprint's alternate route to Cogent?
Cogent is cheap because they built their network from the ground up to serve as an Internet backbone, through strategic acquisitions and planning. Sprint's backbone is piggy-backing on their phone network, just like Verizon, just like ATT, who also have a dark history with cheating people and taking from the tax coffer.
Even if Cogent was in the wrong, and was the sole cause of the depeering, that doesn't change the fact that tens of millions of people were affected by the spat.
Someone earlier posited regulation, but I feel their idea was drafted with only the needs of the end customers in mind. What should happen during a dispute is that the connection must be kept until *both* parties find alternate routes to each other, or until a court decides one side is in the wrong, and must pay for use of the connection. This essentially means no free rides, and none of the small people (us) get hurt in the process either. In all reality, that should have already been covered in the contract.
I don't use Cogent as the primary transit for any of my networks, but I do use Sprint. I am writing this as a person who's seen the Incumbents repeatedly try to hurt the new, more efficient competitor.
Might get modded down for this, but I need to know...
How exactly does a company pulling a product line equate to rights online? You don't have any more right to demand a product from XM than you do to demand Ford to stop making trucks. And what, exactly, does connecting a radio to a computer have to do with rights online?
Think of it more like this... You buy a deadbolt and knob lock set from Company A. Company A knew about flaws in the set for some time, which were caused by flaws in the master plans for the set. While Company A has a fix for that lock, and willing to provide it free of charge, they don't bother telling you about the fix, or even the problem. Someone else finds out about this flaw, and goes from neighborhood to neighborhood looking for doors with this particular lockset. They find you have yet to get it fixed, and abuse this problem. They are to blame just as much as the lock set's manufacturer. The flaws could have been avoided by simply checking the master plans (aka, distribution master). However, if you were told about the problem and ignored it, you are to blame as well.
DNS blacklists are federally protected
on
Spammer Sues SpamCop
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
17 UFC 230(1)(2)
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessivly violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described."
Broken down for:
ISPs that filter:
"no provider.. shall be held liable of any action.. to restrict access to material that the provider.. considers.. otherwise objectionable"
DNS blacklists:
"any action taken to.. make available.. the technical means to restrict access to material described"
And what happens when someone wants to contact you regarding spam, DDoS, and other abuse, or a problem with your mail server, etc? If there's a problem with your mail server, contacting you via email is pretty much out of the question. Also, wouldn't the cost for the registrars handling subpeonas be passed on to the clients?
Slashdot Mirror
Sprint has its fair share of cheating customers, peers, and even competitors. It's a phone company, that's what they do. I dare say this situation is entirely their fault. They created the link with only the intention of getting money from cogent, not to create settlement free peering (purely speculation).
Why should Cogent have a secondary route, but not Sprint? After all, Cogent's customers weren't the ones hurting, it was Sprint's customers. Where was Sprint's alternate route to Cogent?
Cogent is cheap because they built their network from the ground up to serve as an Internet backbone, through strategic acquisitions and planning. Sprint's backbone is piggy-backing on their phone network, just like Verizon, just like ATT, who also have a dark history with cheating people and taking from the tax coffer.
Even if Cogent was in the wrong, and was the sole cause of the depeering, that doesn't change the fact that tens of millions of people were affected by the spat.
Someone earlier posited regulation, but I feel their idea was drafted with only the needs of the end customers in mind. What should happen during a dispute is that the connection must be kept until *both* parties find alternate routes to each other, or until a court decides one side is in the wrong, and must pay for use of the connection. This essentially means no free rides, and none of the small people (us) get hurt in the process either. In all reality, that should have already been covered in the contract.
I don't use Cogent as the primary transit for any of my networks, but I do use Sprint. I am writing this as a person who's seen the Incumbents repeatedly try to hurt the new, more efficient competitor.
Might get modded down for this, but I need to know...
How exactly does a company pulling a product line equate to rights online? You don't have any more right to demand a product from XM than you do to demand Ford to stop making trucks. And what, exactly, does connecting a radio to a computer have to do with rights online?
Think of it more like this...
You buy a deadbolt and knob lock set from Company A. Company A knew about flaws in the set for some time, which were caused by flaws in the master plans for the set. While Company A has a fix for that lock, and willing to provide it free of charge, they don't bother telling you about the fix, or even the problem.
Someone else finds out about this flaw, and goes from neighborhood to neighborhood looking for doors with this particular lockset. They find you have yet to get it fixed, and abuse this problem. They are to blame just as much as the lock set's manufacturer. The flaws could have been avoided by simply checking the master plans (aka, distribution master).
However, if you were told about the problem and ignored it, you are to blame as well.
erm, USC, not UFC.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessivly violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described."
Broken down for:
ISPs that filter:
"no provider .. shall be held liable of any action .. to restrict access to material that the provider .. considers .. otherwise objectionable"
DNS blacklists:
"any action taken to .. make available .. the technical means to restrict access to material described"
And what happens when someone wants to contact you regarding spam, DDoS, and other abuse, or a problem with your mail server, etc? If there's a problem with your mail server, contacting you via email is pretty much out of the question. Also, wouldn't the cost for the registrars handling subpeonas be passed on to the clients?