nanog mailing list archives
Re: Internic address allocation policy
From: Finger in the Infodike <haas () ski utah edu>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 95 12:36:11 MST
Very interesting debate... let's look back in time to the turn of the century, when our fair city had several competing phone companies. The largest, AT&T, drove the rest out of business by refusing to connect to them. Hence they became a monopoly and claimed that it was "natural" for the phone company to be a monopoly. The "natural monopoly" lasted until fairly recently, when the government broke it up. I think that the Internet could well face the same set of issues. In particular if, say MCInet became convincingly dominant, they could easily put the rest of you guys out of business by refusing to connect you. I think that the only thing that can prevent the Internet following the same course as the telephone network is government anti-trust regulation, which I would hope to see, since I value free competition. -- Walt -------
Current thread:
- Re: Internic address allocation policy, (continued)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Doug Humphrey (Mar 23)
- Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Sean Shapira (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Bill Manning (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Mike Nittmann (Mar 27)
- Re: Efficient (Dense) Use of Address Blocks Paul Traina (Mar 27)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Jeremy Porter (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy ATM_Feel_the_Power (Mar 18)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy George Herbert (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Karl Denninger (Mar 20)
- Re: Internic address allocation policy Bill Manning (Mar 20)