nanog mailing list archives
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
From: Jeff S Wheeler <jsw () five-elements com>
Date: 19 Aug 2002 12:11:24 -0400
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:46, Owen DeLong wrote: *snip*
Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set the destination IP address for the content. The intervening backbones don't do that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are modified to send it along it's way. The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the originator of the communication. There are two hosts which could be argued to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the conversation. The routers in between do not meet the test.
If this is the basis of your argument, multicast backbones would be a legal liability. How about a 1-800 conference circuit? The concept is the same, as is the level of content participation. The difference is the legal protection offered to the voice common-carrier is greater than what is offered to IP carriers. -- Jeff S Wheeler jsw () five-elements com Software Development Five Elements, Inc http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/
Current thread:
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones, (continued)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones JC Dill (Aug 19)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Miles Fidelman (Aug 19)
- Message not available
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Jeff Ogden (Aug 20)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones bmanning (Aug 20)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Jeff Ogden (Aug 17)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Jared Mauch (Aug 17)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Majdi S. Abbas (Aug 17)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Richard A Steenbergen (Aug 17)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Owen DeLong (Aug 19)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones Jeff S Wheeler (Aug 19)
- Re: Major Labels v. Backbones David Schwartz (Aug 19)
- RE: Major Labels v. Backbones Dan Hollis (Aug 19)