i mentioned that there is (to my knowledge) no significant govt regulation applicable to this matter (internet partitioning by the core network providers, due to business disagreements -- or other avoidable reasons). on nanog, this issue did come up and in keeping with the libertarianism of some of the internet set, the possibility of govt intervention has been used as a red flag to criticize such spats.
here are some related links from the list discussion:
http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2005/10/07/dispute_threatens_to_snarl_internet/
> Dispute threatens to snarl Internet
> Service providers' row may spur push for global regulation
> By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | October 7, 2005
>
> Internet connections could be disrupted for millions of people in
> Europe and North America as the result of a pricing spat between the
> world's two major service providers, raising concerns about who
> governs the global communications network and how it should be
> regulated.
>
> On Wednesday, the Internet service provider Level 3 Communications
> Inc. of Broomfield, Colo., broke its connections with a major
> competitor, Cogent Communications Group Inc. of Washington, D.C.,
> effectively throwing up roadblocks for some e-mail communication and
> access to websites. Level 3, which provides Internet services to
> major companies like Cox Communications and America Online,
> essentially stopped allowing its customers to connect with those of
> Cogent, which has 9,500 customers around the world. Cogent provides
> Internet services to a number of local universities, including
> Harvard, Boston College, and the Massachusetts Institute of
> Technology.
>
> Although the scale of the disruption is unclear, the incident may
> offer more fodder for those who believe the Internet should be
> regulated by an international agency, such as the United Nations.
> Scientists in the United States invented the Internet, and the
> computers that oversee the network are still controlled by the US
> Department of Commerce, which favors a hands-off approach. But
> governments worldwide have launched a campaign to put the Internet
> under international control. American officials have resisted the
> idea, saying that UN oversight would introduce undue government
> interference and the threat of data censorship by authoritarian
> states like China.
>
> <...>
>
> US Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat and
> ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, hinted
> that the Federal Communications Commission might interfere in the
> matter. ''Obviously, I hope the parties will reach a timely
> commercial arrangement to resolve this dispute," said Markey, ''but
> the FCC must be prepared to take steps to assure continuity of
> service to consumers in the event that the parties fail to reach an
> agreement."
>
> <...>
>
http://www.betanews.com/article/Google_Goes_to_Washington/1128691070
> Google Goes to Washington
> By Ed Oswald, BetaNews
> October 7, 2005, 9:17 AM
>
> Google has announced that it plans to step up efforts to lobby in
> Washington, but it says that it would be working on behalf of the
> technology industry in general rather than in its own best interest.
>
> <...>
>
> One of the issues Google will tackle has become news this week: Level
> 3 and Cogent Communications are involved in a spat that has made Web
> sites on each network inaccessible or very slow to users on the
> opposite network. Google said the government has a responsibility to
> monitor the Internet so events like this do not occur.
--ravi
-- If you wish to contact me, you will get my attention faster by substituting "r" for "listmail" in my email address. Thank you!