[11107] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A New CIX Design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dick St.Peters)
Tue Mar 22 03:08:05 1994
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 14:41:05 EST
From: stpeters@swan-song.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
To: karl@mcs.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, washburn@cix.org
Reply-To: <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>
>From karl@mcs.com Sat Mar 19 23:25:28 1994
>Or are you arguing for the <2 to 10> crowd? Well, to that I say "there are
>costs to any business model". There are <always> going to be points in the
>curve where it is not economical to do something you would like. This is
>no exception.
Karl, as far as I'm concerned, this entire thread is about the <10
crowd, the <5 crowd even. "Business model" has nothing to do with this
because we would not be a business. Businesses have something called
revenue and an intention to grow it beyond expenses.
Yes, if I wanted to go into business as a provider, the CIX fee starts
looking pretty small once revenue reaches a few hundred thousand $/yr.
But I do not want to become a provider.
I do want to be (and am) a consultant on high-end networking
applications. To expand my client base beyond GE, I need my own
high-end networking, but it's too big a cost for what will be only a
portion of my consulting (and doesn't exist at all yet).
The cost would be a lot more reasonable if I could dilute it by sharing
with a couple of others who also cannot afford individual networking.
I see no reason why such arrangements should not be allowed. Who in
their right mind can see an IP-reselling "business" in an arrangement
with a fixed number of "customers" paying the "business" less for IP
than the "business" pays for it?
I'd be creating a collective customer where otherwise none will exist
and also enabling myself and a couple of others to go about our real
business, which is creating reasons for the Internet to exist.
--
Dick St.Peters, Gatekeeper, The Pearly Gateway; currently at:
GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
