Internet Access Dispute Cut Off Some Businesses

Last week, a dispute between Cogent Communications Group and Level 3 Communications, two of the companies that usually move Internet traffic seamlessly around the world, cut off many of their clients from parts of the Web. With the Internet as vital to many businesses as the telephone, the incident prompted calls for the government to step in if the industry does not prevent such disruptions on its own. "Does it require regulation? I think if the industry does not show itself to be more mature -- yeah," said David J. Farber, a former chief technologist at the Federal Communications Commission. He said his natural instinct is to avoid regulation "if you can get more sane solutions from the industry." Communications experts suggested that companies in such disputes should agree to arbitration, have a cooling-off period during which they cannot cut service and warn all customers of any disruption. In this dispute, Level 3 claims that it was carrying a disproportionate amount of Cogent traffic and should be paid for it. Cogent said it had sent more traffic to Level 3 but only at the other firm's request. A Level 3 executive said he was not aware that his company had made such a request. Neither side made provisions to arrange connections with other Internet "backbone" providers, which would have kept all their customers connected after the cutoff. Level 3 appeared chastened by the experience but said government regulation was not needed because the market policed itself.
[SOURCE: Washington Post, AUTHOR: Arshad Mohammed]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/13/AR200510...
(requires registration)