[11070] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sun Mar 20 20:24:54 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 00:04:06 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com, cook@path.net,
In-Reply-To: <199403190306.TAA21915@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 18, 94 07:06:47 pm
>
> So, I guess what you're claiming is that when AOL or CompuServe let their
> customers have GUI access to resources on the Internet, they'd be operating
> one of these so-called "sham" operations if they were to take advantage of
> CIX connectivity without becoming a CIX member.
>
> What I'm tired of is:
> "IP is Special" the idea that somehow by getting my email via SMTP over an IP
> connection to some service provider i'm doing something VASTLY different from
> getting my email by uucp or by logging into a shell account.
> As Erik Fair said, Bandwidth is Bandwidth. If a provider is going to be
> required to join CIX to have CIX routing for subsidiary IP connections, they
> ought to be required to join CIX to have CIX routing for their shell account
> users, their UUCP users, their who-knows-what-protocol-as-long-as-it-isn't-IP{
> users.
>
> and
> "Doesn't matter what the agreement says, because we'd decided on some
> Working Rules,... so ignore the contract you sign, and abide by the
> unwritten rules" that CIX is doing.
> IF THE CIX AGREEMENT SAID that "IP is special, and if you resell IP,
> you don't get CIX routing without becoming a member yourself", I would
> shut up. Because I could read the contract, decide if it was worth $10k,
> and take it or leave it. But it doesn't. It doesn't say HALF of what the
> "unwritten rules" require. And I'm not about to pay $10k to an organization
> that won't put ALL of the groundrules that the members have agreed upon
> INTO WRITING
The CIX <has> put them into writing.
Resellers of IP CONNETIVITY must be members if they want <guarantees> of
CIX member routing to their <direct> customers.
Note that other parts of the agreement define what an elegible member is
(and thus who the CIX is intended to serve).
Every business and industry has commonly accepted definitions. IP
provision is no different. So is the vending of steel, or the rebuilding
of engines, or the refining of oil. If someone says "light, sweet crude"
that has a definition in the world of oil brokers. It means <nothing> to
you and I (well, it might if you understand oil sales; I don't).
I have heard rumblings that SOME members are making noises that are in SEVERE
violation of the written agreements that I signed when I committed MCSNet
to the CIX. If I find those rumblings to be true in any way, shape or form
you can bet I will bring an official protest, pillory those providers
in public, and press suit if necessary. I don't give a tinker's damn who's
ox I gore on this stuff; MCSNet became a CIX member for very specific reasons,
and with very specific terms and conditions in the agreement we signed. Those
contract provisions inure to the benefit of our customers, and expect to
take full advantage of what we paid for with those customers.
I expect that agreement to be upheld by ALL members, large and small alike.
Likewise, I am highly irritated by people who assume that there is some
form of chicanery going on to prevent others from entering this business.
I will note that if this were true MCSNet would not be selling IP services
today.
--
--
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.
