[11119] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Tue Mar 22 05:43:45 1994
To: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Cc: gwh@crl.com (George Herbert), matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com,
cook@path.net, fair@apple.com, stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com,
washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Mar 1994 22:32:14 CST."
<m0piFBO-000BbnC@mercury.mcs.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 21:22:41 -0800
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>
>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.
How about a 100km radius (62 miles), far enough you can't drive to
fix your POP and get there under an hour in traffic 8-)
And yes, sub-companies should count.
You might also want to have a gradiated scale of more areas being
closer to $10k (say 2=$6000, 3=$8000, 4+=$10k), so that companies
could scale up gradually.
>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.
Those would be internal CIX issues, but they make sense to me...
>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.
I don't think anyone here things it should cost less than the
router, CSU, and leased line to make the connection. $4k is a good
number because it adds a chunk to small startups costs, but won't
double them (or worse).
>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.
It depends. If it's ten groups at voice-line SLIP speeds, the per-line
costs to install can easily be under $500 (including the provider's setup).
$900 is a lot less than $1500. If it's ten people at 56k or more, then
you're gaining less.
-george william herbert
Speaking only for myself
