[11079] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: What is an "Internet reseller"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Mon Mar 21 19:31:16 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 13:25:06 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com, fair@apple.com,
washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <199403190954.BAA22378@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 19, 94 01:54:39 am
>
> From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger):
> > 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.
>
> Ah. But I _want_ to pay the $10k.
But only on your terms. The association is not required to bend their
rules to accomodate your terms.
> And then I want MY CUSTOMERS' TRAFFIC
> carried by other CIX members. And I want to charge what _I_ choose...
> even if I decide to charge $1/year to people who have already paid for
> the cost of transporting their data to my POP. I want to have the following
> price list:
> IP Routing to the Internet, Including CIX.......... $1/year
> Connection to my POP via T-1....................... $12000/year
> Connection to my POP via ISDN...................... $6000/year
> Connection to my POP via customer-provided method.. $0
> Note: customer-provided method approved on a
> case-by-case basis. IP Routing to the Internet service
> ONLY available to customers connected to my POP.
>
> And the customer-provided method can include anything from someone
> down the street who wants to lay fiber to my POP to someone who
> gets their data to me by sharing bandwidth on a leased line running
> to one of my existing customers. (The added cost of which, of course,
> that existing customer is welcome to absorb entirely, or share with
> the new customer)
That last model is what is currently known in the industry as an "indirect"
customer.
> Now. Is that acceptable, or is that a "sham"?
>
> Saying "its a sham, because that's not how most IP providers operate
> today, so it isn't a normal industry practice, sorry, you're not allowed
> to experiment with new business or pricing models" isn't acceptable,
> in my opinion.
Doesn't matter if its acceptable in your opinion. You are trying to define
"direct customer" in your own terms. You can't - there is a generally
accepted definition, just as there is one for "light, sweet crude oil" in
the oil trade.
You're welcome to experiment with anything you like. What you're trying to
do here is force those experimental models down <our> throats. Those of us
who have already ponied up to the bar. And I, for one, say "not by force
you don't".
The problem with many of these models is that they destablize the funding
base that the CIX operates on. If you destroy THAT, you destroy the CIX.
Those of us in the party already don't want that to happen, and I dare-say
you don't want it to happen either. The result would be absolute anarchy,
a general rise in prices, and, I suspect, the end of the small provider
business entirely. Oh, that "end to small providers" happens to include you.
The CIX <could have> evolved as a pass-through "tax" to all the connected
networks, with each provider paying some small monthly fee for each signed
up customer they route for. Perhaps it should have. But it didn't, and the
rules that are there now are the ones that we're all playing by.
(I'll note that I particularly don't like that kind of pass-through "tax"
arrangement, as there are SEVERE auditability problems with it as well as
trade-secret problems -- do you REALLY want to release your customer list
for verification purposes on something like this?)
[Note #2: If there are OTHER Providers on this list, or other wanna-bes,
and you want to talk about a midwest-connection point that has some
different structure we all agree on, send me email. I am quite interested
in such a thing and will by happy to discuss it.]
What you want to do is get the rest of us to guarantee that you can sell
that first line item and that we'll accept your traffic once you do so (so
you're not defauding your customers by doing this). In other words, YOU WANT
TO DICTATE PRICING AND SETTLEMENT TERMS TO THE REST OF THE MEMBERSHIP!
I thought that was exactly your complaint with the terms as they stood?
Was I incorrect?
The current members of the CIX have agreed on a specific set of terms and
conditions. These terms and conditions are <all> positive obligations,
NOT, as some others have tried to argue, negative obligations. NOTHING in
that agreement says you "may not route indirect traffic". For the tenth
time, It just doesn't protect those arrangements.
Poll the members to see if they'll accept your scheme. If you can get all
of us to sign off on it, then you get the same effect as having it in the
membership agreement, no?
Or do what lots of other people do, and cheat until and unless someone
decides to block your indirect customer traffic.
--
--
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.
