Good for CW. Companies shouldnt cut off peering with
others and not think that one day it might just happen to them.
What I find alarming about this is what is stopping CW from asking a prohibitive sum of money from other providers? Providers can’t simply ‘transit through somebody else’ free of charge because ultimately somebody is paying for the transit rights.
And what I find alarming about this is that we purchase transit service from C&W and they no longer seem to be providing transit service that allows us to reach PSINet either directly or indirectly anymore. We've complained to C&W. They haven't responded yet. I am hoping that we don't need to get out our contract and read the fine print, but it may in fact come to that. (We are multihomed so we have some options, but that doesn't change anything in terms of the service we receive from C&W.)
-Jeff Ogden
Merit
And what I find alarming about this is that we purchase transit
>service from C&W and they no longer seem to be providing transit
>service that allows us to reach PSINet either directly or indirectly
>anymore. We've complained to C&W. They haven't responded yet. I am
>hoping that we don't need to get out our contract and read the fine
>print, but it may in fact come to that. (We are multihomed so we have
>some options, but that doesn't change anything in terms of the
>service we receive from C&W.)
Is there a C&W customer out there who can get his/her SLA easily and find out what kind of service credits are allowed under this type of situation?
If the answer is not "zero", that might limit future such actions on C&W's part - or at least push them not to do this again. If the answer is zero, well, what is to stop them from de-peering other networks?
Then again, if the answer is "zero", it might have a negative impact on their sales. 
> -Jeff Ogden
TTFN,
patrick