[11037] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: CIX , Fee's Routes and What's Really going on here anyway?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Mar 18 15:58:24 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: nettech@crl.com (Joseph W. Stroup)
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:48:49 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, doug@digex.net, cook@path.net, nettech@crl.com,
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9403172239.A26455-0100000@crl.crl.com> from "Joseph W. Stroup" at Mar 17, 94 10:36:39 pm
>
> Doug, I read your reply to Gordon with interest. I think that from your
> point the answer that you gave was correct. I also saw a list of members
> that was posted and it seemed to be wrong or I have mis-informed. I
> thought that MCS.COM and INDIRECT.NET had joined the CIX ? Maybe not or
> maybe the listing was old , who knows.
Its an old list. MCSNet's membership was effective 1 January 1994. A
current one was posted a couple of days ago.
> At any rate, I would NOT join the
> CIX for one reason and its not the $10,000. The fee is "Credit Card
> Money", its the fact that I have always seen it as a sort of "Be my
> Friend Club". The CIX fee is set at $10,000 to keep the smaller companies
> out of the market and the larger companies in control.
Nonsense.
MCSNet is a SMALL company. By any stretch of the imagination. We have a
very modest office and two people drawing paychecks. We started a year ago
with $5,000 selling shell accounts to the public here in Chicagoland. A
year later we could afford a couple of CISCOs, a real office, and a CIX
membership. All of that through extreme frugality and provision of
excellent service.
Small enough for you?
Now we intend to grow, yes, and have done VERY well by any point of
comparison you wish to draw. But we started small, and we could afford
the membership rather early on.
In fact, it is still early on.
> At one time this
> was a good idea. The entire scope of this business has changed so darn
> much in the last year alone that the whole concept of keeping people out
> of the market place just won't work.
Nothing in the CIX agreement, including the membership cost, keeps people
out of the marketplace. If anything the CIX is the SINGLE reason that many
of us are able to be IN this marketplace. That fee is a fixed-price
flat-rate agreement that, in fact, is <peanuts> compared to what the
alternatives cost.
> People think that the Superhighway
> is going to make them mega bucks so they are willing to get into this
> business and pay a price. So far all I see is a very few making any real
> money. If I were DIGEX.NET I would do everything I could to AVOID paying
> the $10,000 fee. You get nothing for it.
You sure do. You get connectivity to 30 network providers and their
customers for one price. A price, I might add, that is MUCH cheaper than
you could even DREAM of negotiating on a piecemeal basis.
> Dealing with ANS allows a small
> company the ability to grow. Perhaps this growth would never happen
> without the help that Digex has gotten from ANS, perhaps not. I for one
> think that the fact that ANS has extended their shield around situations
> like DIGEX.NET is the correct thing to do.
I think that this "shield" is tantamount to weaseling around the trade
association membership requirements that ANY trade association has. ANY,
Joe. Not just the CIX.
Call up one of AERA (Automotive Engine Rebuilder's Association)'s members
and tell them you will pay them $1.00 for copies of their technical
bulletins published by AERA. You're doing this, of course, to avoid paying
the AERA membership (and duplication) fees. When AERA finds out the member
you're doing this through is SCREWED and you're probably going to court.
You WILL lose. And with good reason. You've come up with a device to
defraud, and nobody should have to sit for that.
> About 6 months ago I would
> have not said this. New information I have gotten in the past week has
> lead me to that decision. Anyway, the "Be my Friend Club" is nOT in the
> best interest of the growth of the Internet as a whole. This Superhighway
> thing will only work if there is expansion and cooperation. The Internet
> has grown like a group of weeds and its sort of late in the game to stop
> it.
Ok, Joseph, go ahead and negotiate transit agreements with all the members
individually. When you get done, come back and tell us how much money you
have to spend to do this on a yearly basis.
By the way, this is a legitimate option. Unless, of course, you believe
that we should be <required> to peer with everyone at our cost. If you
advocate THAT approach you are REALLY trying to put small providers out of
business. By my figuring that would cost MCSNet over $500,000 YEARLY for
<THE LEASED LINES REQUIRED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS ALONE>. Add another $100k
for the router and CSU/DSUs required to do the interchange.
The $10,000 CIX administrative fee is chump change by comparison, and is
the best deal going for inter-provider routing service. It is THE enabling
feature for the small provider to get into this business, and is THE
feature that has made possible the rise of firms such as MCSNet. Not a
bully-pulpit attitude from ONE national provider also in this game.
Period.
I will note that any provider, such as ANS, that "lends its support" to
people like Digex could just as easily REMOVE such support. I have the ANS
contract. NOWHERE does it call out any of these responsibilities.
You make your own markets, and are best to do so with CONTRACTS that spell
out of the responsibilities of ALL parties involved. The CIX levels the
playing field for the small provider, and makes possible the entry of
diverse companies selling IP connectivity.
You haven't posted this "new information". Why not Joseph? Put your cards
on the table. If you're going to go after a group of people, at least be
honest enough to play up front and straight with all of us here.
--
--
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.
