Comments on: Common Carrier Regs for the Backbone? http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Fri, 25 May 2012 18:27:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33616 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:37:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33616 <p>81e31de21f46 Good work <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav" rel="nofollow">tramadol</a> tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Good work tramadol tramadol

]]> By: tramadol http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52533 tramadol Mon, 22 Jan 2007 02:37:23 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52533 <p>81e31de21f46 Good work <a href="http://www.abc-acupuncture.com/baxqorav" rel="nofollow">tramadol</a> tramadol</p> 81e31de21f46 Good work tramadol tramadol

]]> By: shorturl http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33615 shorturl Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:29:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33615 <p>9150f9e74eef Hello! <a href="http:/0zu.tw/" rel="nofollow">shorturl</a> shorturl</p> 9150f9e74eef Hello! shorturl shorturl

]]> By: shorturl http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52532 shorturl Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:29:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52532 <p>9150f9e74eef Hello! <a href="http:/0zu.tw/" rel="nofollow">shorturl</a> shorturl</p> 9150f9e74eef Hello! shorturl shorturl

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52531 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:22:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52531 <p>BTW, I criticized Drum's comment on my blog <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/kevin-drum-gets-it-wrong-on-net.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>,<br>and Yglesias <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/05/yglesias-on-mccurry.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br><br>There's a lot of blind leading the blind on this subject.</p> BTW, I criticized Drum’s comment on my blog here,
and Yglesias here.

There’s a lot of blind leading the blind on this subject.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52530 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 03:19:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52530 <p>Tim, that's right about peering.<br><br>I discussed <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2005/10/level-3-depeers-cogent.html" rel="nofollow">a specific example</a> of a recent peering controversy (tier 1 provider Level 3's depeering of tier 2 provider Cogent) at my blog last October that gives some basic information about how peering and peering relationships work, with reference to <a href="http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm" rel="nofollow">a good paper on the subject</a> by Geoff Huston.</p> Tim, that’s right about peering.

I discussed a specific example of a recent peering controversy (tier 1 provider Level 3′s depeering of tier 2 provider Cogent) at my blog last October that gives some basic information about how peering and peering relationships work, with reference to a good paper on the subject by Geoff Huston.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33614 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:22:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33614 <p>BTW, I criticized Drum's comment on my blog <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/06/kevin-drum-gets-it-wrong-on-net.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, and Yglesias <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/05/yglesias-on-mccurry.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p> <p>There's a lot of blind leading the blind on this subject.</p> BTW, I criticized Drum’s comment on my blog here, and Yglesias here.

There’s a lot of blind leading the blind on this subject.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33613 Jim Lippard Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:19:52 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33613 <p>Tim, that's right about peering.</p> <p>I discussed <a href="http://lippard.blogspot.com/2005/10/level-3-depeers-cogent.html" rel="nofollow">a specific example</a> of a recent peering controversy (tier 1 provider Level 3's depeering of tier 2 provider Cogent) at my blog last October that gives some basic information about how peering and peering relationships work, with reference to <a href="http://www.isoc.org/inet99/proceedings/1e/1e_1.htm" rel="nofollow">a good paper on the subject</a> by Geoff Huston.</p> Tim, that’s right about peering.

I discussed a specific example of a recent peering controversy (tier 1 provider Level 3′s depeering of tier 2 provider Cogent) at my blog last October that gives some basic information about how peering and peering relationships work, with reference to a good paper on the subject by Geoff Huston.

]]> By: A. Scott Crawford http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52529 A. Scott Crawford Mon, 29 May 2006 14:13:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52529 <p>Here's an even more interesting question. If the telecom and cable designations change, would that mean that the telecoms are now subject to the public access laws? See link for particulars.<br><br><a href="http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicaccess/publicaccess.htm">http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publi...</a></p> Here’s an even more interesting question. If the telecom and cable designations change, would that mean that the telecoms are now subject to the public access laws? See link for particulars.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publi…

]]> By: A. Scott Crawford http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33612 A. Scott Crawford Mon, 29 May 2006 13:13:56 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33612 <p>Here's an even more interesting question. If the telecom and cable designations change, would that mean that the telecoms are now subject to the public access laws? See link for particulars.</p> <p>http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicaccess/publicaccess.htm</p> Here’s an even more interesting question. If the telecom and cable designations change, would that mean that the telecoms are now subject to the public access laws? See link for particulars.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicaccess/publicaccess.htm

]]> By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-52528 James Gattuso Fri, 26 May 2006 18:41:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-52528 <p>Tim -- I saw that too. You are correct. Common carrier regulations apply to "telecommunications" networks -- essentially the last-mile connections to end users provided by telcos (including, until last year, broadband connections.) The backbone is something different entirely -- it is NOT provided exclusively by telcos, and was never under common carrier regulation. Progress and Freedom has a good survey of the backbone market here: <a href="http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/communications/books/051018Interconnection.pdf">http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/communications/b...</a></p> Tim — I saw that too. You are correct. Common carrier regulations apply to “telecommunications” networks — essentially the last-mile connections to end users provided by telcos (including, until last year, broadband connections.) The backbone is something different entirely — it is NOT provided exclusively by telcos, and was never under common carrier regulation. Progress and Freedom has a good survey of the backbone market here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/communications/b…

]]> By: James Gattuso http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-33611 James Gattuso Fri, 26 May 2006 17:41:05 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2006/05/26/common-carrier-regs-for-the-backbone/#comment-33611 <p>Tim -- I saw that too. You are correct. Common carrier regulations apply to "telecommunications" networks -- essentially the last-mile connections to end users provided by telcos (including, until last year, broadband connections.) The backbone is something different entirely -- it is NOT provided exclusively by telcos, and was never under common carrier regulation. Progress and Freedom has a good survey of the backbone market here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/communications/books/051018Interconnection.pdf</p> Tim — I saw that too. You are correct. Common carrier regulations apply to “telecommunications” networks — essentially the last-mile connections to end users provided by telcos (including, until last year, broadband connections.) The backbone is something different entirely — it is NOT provided exclusively by telcos, and was never under common carrier regulation. Progress and Freedom has a good survey of the backbone market here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/communications/books/051018Interconnection.pdf

]]>