[11085] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Mon Mar 21 21:00:25 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 16:31:17 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, gwh@crl.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com,
cook@path.net, fair@apple.com, washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <9403192210.AA02583@swan-song.> from "Dick St.Peters" at Mar 19, 94 05:10:40 pm
> >From gwh@crl.com Sat Mar 19 15:15:15 1994
>
> >From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
> >>Note: There's some heat in here. My blood boils when I read posts from
> >>people who are continually trying to devise a way around a voluntary
> >>associative agreement!
> >
> >This is in some ways the crux of the problem. From the top down,
> >CIX as it is was intended to be and appears to be a volountary
> >associative agreement to keep settlements down. From the bottom up,
> >as Matthew keeps pointing out (and Dick seconded) CIX has set
> >itself up to be a cartel, with a buy-in level designed to prevent
> >any small fry competitors from setting up in an entirely legitimate
> >(i.e. guaranteed routing) manner.
>
> While I agree with this (more or less, "cartel" is a rather too strong
> language for my taste - the problems seem more like side effects than
> evil intent by design), my perspective differs from Matthew's:
>
> - I do not want to be a provider
>
> - I do want to be a customer
Good! then be one.
> - The price of becoming a customer is high here
So find others who want to be customers too, and a provider will spring up
to serve you. This is how the free market tends to work. In fact, if it
was effective, I would consider putting a location in your back yard.
> - I'd like to lower the cost for myself and some others by sharing
> a line with them
>
> - The CIX says if I do this I'm a reseller
>
> - The CIX fee would make our costs go up, not down
Not really. In order to "share a line" you would have to consummate an
agreement with the other providers -- else you have no transit to <anyone>.
Again, if you can convince me that it makes sense to locate a POP there and
sell all of your "others" and you lines, then I'm game. I suspect that I'm
not the only one willing to do this either :-)
> Now I know from Karl's response to my last post that he can't read when
> his blood's boiling, but surely there are at least some people on this
> list capable of understanding this simple concept: there is more than
> one way to run a CIX.
So put it on the table. As I have said before, many times, I am NOT
adverse to discussing such things, and in fact am quite prepared to open
such a transit point here in Chicago if it makes sense.
What's "makes sense"?
1) It has to operate at break-even, because I'm not interested in
funding someone else's experiments.
2) It has to be equitable to all participants.
3) It has to be sustainable over a long period of time, and not contain
built-in self-destruct clauses in the terms of access.
> >>Either you're for us or again' us.
>
> Karl, you have an attitude problem :-)
>
> Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
Why thank you! :-)
--
--
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.
