[11094] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Mon Mar 21 22:30:30 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: gwh@crl.com (George Herbert)
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 22:32:14 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, gwh@crl.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com,
cook@path.net, fair@apple.com, stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com,
washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <199403200345.AA19785@crl2.crl.com> from "George Herbert" at Mar 19, 94 07:45:15 pm
> >snark have a long way to go on this, and they can start by putting forth
> >their suggestions for people to look at and comment on.
>
> $4k buyin for single geographical area providers, $10k for nationals,
> and existing agreement stands in other areas.
>
> -george william herbert
> Speaking only for myself
Define "single geographical area" and I think you could possibly have a
suggestion that I could get behind. Add to that a clause that all companies
owned or substantially (use the SEC rules, say, 5%) controlled by a parent
or interlocking directorate count for the purposes of determining whether
you are a "single" or "multiple". That prevents the shell games that get
played by many firms to avoid exactly this issue.
I have no problem with this, <providing> that those of us who already paid
in at full price but are in the second category get a check back from the
CIX post-haste, AND provided that it becomes agreed that member services
are for <members>. That is, the CIX becomes more proactive (and
non-discriminatory) about who gets routed (ie: no payee, no routee). I
don't know if negative obligations would stand a anti-trust test, though,
so that would have to be deferred to the lawyers. If not, well, then I'll
fold on that request by default.
I suspect this change wouldn't solve the problem, which is that the
people here who think this is a huge issue think it ought to be more in the
few-hundred-bucks range. IT CANNOT BE, because if it is then the model
collapses due to insufficient revenue.
Why do I think this? Look at my last post to this list where I called out
the costs to a 10-company (or person) co-op to get a membership at full
price. You're talking about a <ten percent> cost reduction to those folks
if the price was $4k instead of $10k.
Not enough to change the basic character of the argument, I suspect.
--
--
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.
