[11069] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: What is an "Internet reseller"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sun Mar 20 20:22:42 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 03:53:45 -0600 (CST)
Cc: fair@apple.com, karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com, washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <199403190727.XAA22208@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 18, 94 11:27:14 pm
> If I send 1MB of email from a Unix account I buy from some provider,
> or 1MB of email by forwarding stuff via UUCP up to a service provider,
> or 1MB of email by opening the SMTP connection myself, if its going
> to some other CIX-connected host it uses EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF
> RESOURCES.
That's not true Matthew. Resources may LOOK identical to you, but they are
not. If you forward that email via some UUCP or other "non-SMTP" form, you
have zero control over when and how it is sent. In particular, your
provider may choose to defer it if he decides that the load at a particular
point is too high.
If you submit it via SMTP you are doing it NOW.
> "IP is Special" is a MYTH. Except for some arbitrary, unfounded beliefs of
> some people who, now that they have spent their $10k, want to pretend
> otherwise, there is NO REASON to differentiate between "user who occasionally
> calls a Unix host", "user who occasionally sends out stuff via UUCP" and
> "user who occasionally dials in and uses SLIP"
Ok. We all stop playing this "myth" and tomorrow the entire settlement-free
CIX model of a backbone COLLAPSES.
You get what you wanted. Except that now, your flat-rate, or nearly so,
UUCP connection is GONE. Instead you get charged per kilobyte sent, by a
provider who is charged per kilobyte sent to other networks. Your costs
rise -- astronomically in fact, and your bill for that kilobyte depends on
WHERE you send it (does this sound familiar yet?)
It should sound familiar. Its exactly what the phone system bills like
right now. And, without the CIX or organizations like it, this is what
your Internet bill is going to look like.
I can see it now:
Bill for Service - March 1994
Base line charge: $450.00
FTP to ftp.Nielsen.Com/Alternet $ 50.00
SMTP to GE/PSI $100.00
.....
-------
Total: $4,500.00
(companies and destinations are pulled out of my hat; I don't know if these
affiliations are correct or not)
Don't think it won't, or can't happen? Think again! Some nice large
companies, ANS included, have said IN PUBLIC that this is EXACTLY the
model they want to see.
I will note that Ameritech made EXACTLY this argument in front of the PUC a
few years ago in Chicago -- and said that the "average consumer would save
money" with usage-sensitive pricing. They got their pricing change.
In the quarters immediately following the DELETION of flat-rate phone
service in Chicagoland, Ameritech reported RECORD PROFITS. Further, I defy
you to find anyone in Chicagoland who got a lower phone bill than they did
with the choice to have flat-rate calling. CERTAINLY the majority of bills
went <UP>, otherwise those record profits wouldn't have happened - would
they? Lots of bills went up 400% and more, my own included!
Again I ask -- IS THIS THE WORLD YOU WANT TO HAVE?
"Yes" or "No" will do for a response.
> They can all generate and receive bits which travel across the CIX router,
> and as long as the connection is getting paid for, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
HOW is it being paid for? Indeed, as the amount of traffic rises more and
more router gear and technical time is required to maintain and operate
this network interconnect point. SOMEBODY has to get that bill.
> Once the CIX router and its support is paid for, the extra $10k per
> "reseller" simply goes into Bill Washburn's pocket, as far as I can tell.
That's a serious charge and is libelous without some form of support.
Do you want an accounting of the finances of the CIX? I would think that
given that the CIX is a 501(c) organization that you could easily get one.
Do your homework before making accusations that you cannot substantiate.
> And simply MAKING UP reasons why more people ought to be required to
> pay the $10k doesn't go any farther towards convincing me that its going
> to a good cause.
>
> -matthew
NOBODY is required to pay $10k. Hell, if you feel this way, don't pay it!
But if you choose not to don't cry when your traffic, as an ISP, is
refused by other members until and unless you get out your checkbook.
NOTHING requires MCSNet, PSI, Alternet or any of the other members to
route your customer's traffic without you paying a settlement charge -
except that pesky CIX agreement if you happen to be a CIX member.
If you happen to think the CIX model is broken then go do it some other
way. Just don't come back here grousing about the consequences of your
choice.
--
--
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.
