[11036] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Mar 18 15:25:04 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:18:38 -0600 (CST)
Cc: cook@path.net, karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com, fair@apple.com,
In-Reply-To: <199403181004.CAA19841@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 18, 94 02:04:14 am
> >
> > You can extend routing to them, yes.
> >
> > However, no other members have to accept those routes, or pass packets
> > from them.
> >
> > Again, the CIX agreement does not say you CANNOT pass "backdoor" traffic.
> > It also doesn't say that you must.
>
> So, if I'm X is a reseller, connected to CIX, and Y is a reseller,
> connected to X, and Z is a customer, connected to Y, then X is allowed to
> advertise a route to Z, and mcs/alternet/psi/sprint/etc CAN accept that
> route, and pass packets destined for Z, but they aren't required to.
> Right?
Correct.
> > It does, however, say that you will route traffic for direct customers of
> > members. That's a duty of membership, as the agreement reads today.
>
> So, if Z was a customer of X, mcs/alternet/psi/sprint/etc MUST accept the
> route that X advertises, and pass packets destined for Z. Correct?
>
> Now then, if we have the first situation, but X charges Z $1/year for
> CIX routing, doesn't Z now become a "direct customer" of X?
> Wouldn't it then be the case that mcs/alternet/psi/sprint/etc MUST accept
> the route that X advertises, and pass packets destined for Z, even though
> Z is "connected through" Y ?
I, and others, have construed the agreement to say that "customer" is more
than a sham arrangement where you hand money from one place to another. It
involves the provision of some kind of service as is generally accepted in
the industry.
> If yes, I'll be connecting as soon as I have the $10,000.
>
> If no, then isn't the CIX "mandating" a "minimum price to charge" for its
> members, which, since they comprise nearly all of the IP providers by now,
> would seem to be a clearly defined case of a conspiracy to engage in
> restraint of trade... Because if the answer is no, what you're saying is
> "Well, you can pay $10000 to us and hook up, and you can resell service,
> BUT YOU CAN'T ONLY CHARGE $1/year FOR IT"
Sure you can. Provide them a pipe and have them as what the industry
generally accepts as "direct customers" and you can charge whatever you
want. Even at $1.00/year. Nobody is setting prices for you. That <would>
be illegal and unethical.
What we are saying is that if you attempt to circumvent the spirit of the
agreement through sham arrangements you shouldn't expect them to be
honored.
All industries have generally accepted practices. This one is no
different. Its easy to construct sham arrangements which violate those
generally accepted practices, and attempt to do so for personal gain or to
destroy something which an industry has built for their own benefit.
Try this kind of thing with ANY OTHER ASSOCIATION IN THE COUNTRY and
you'll get the group which you're going through tossed out on their ear
or severely reprimanded. You might even get prosecuted for fraud and/or
theft of services.
The CIX is no different. It is a trade association which <provides
services to members>. If you attempt to circumvent being a member, but
still receive the services, you are engaging in a conspiracy and scheme to
commit theft. Period.
Note that the CIX agreement SPECIFICALLY states (probably for the benefit
of those who would try to bring a restraint of trade action) that NOTHING
in the agremeent shall prevent private arrangement.
However, just try to negotiate settlement-free transit to PSI and Alternet
without going through the CIX. I suspect it will cost you a HELL of a lot
more than $10,000 a year to do so, in physical (ie: leased line) costs
alone. Hell, MCSNet is interested in such an arrangement with anyone at
all; its in both of our best interests. You pull the line, and pay for it,
and I'm interested.
You won't be able to do that for $10,000 a year, and <you only get connected
to MCSNet for that cost!>
The CIX is the cheapest way to get transit services to over 30 network
providers and their direct customers. Period. In that it is HARDLY
"restraint of trade"; rather, it is THE feature which in fact greatly
INCREASES competition in the marketplace. The first person who tries to
press a restraint of trade suit is going to have to face people like me who
will testify IN COURT that were it not for the CIX we could not operate AT
ALL, that we are a small business, and that we have seen the rise of
competing providers across the country PRECISELY due to the CIX.
Again, if you don't like the model, open negotiations with all 30 members,
and negotiate your own deal. Nobody is, or ever has, prevented you from
doing exactly this. If we were it would be restraint of trade, but we're
not.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
