[11126] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: A New CIX Design
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Mar 22 06:22:17 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 00:12:53 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com, washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <9403211941.AA02923@swan-song.> from "Dick St.Peters" at Mar 21, 94 02:41:05 pm
> >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).
Well, is this not just sour grapes then? And why do you need "high end"
networking to do this stuff? Is not reasonable networking sufficient?
Hell, I would like a T1 in my home too. The realities of the world say
that I'm not likely to get one, if for no other reason that I'm not going
to pay for it out of my pocket.
> 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.
True; on the other hand you should be able to strike some kind of deal with
a provider that works for all of you, yet keeps all of you the provider's
direct customer -- and thus doesn't get into any kind of problem.
> I see no reason why such arrangements should not be allowed.
They are allowed. Just not protected.
> 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?
Cost recovery is a valid business model (ie: non-profits)
> 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.
Yep. And, I suspect, with the right discussions, you'll find someone
willing to work with you to do exactly that.
--
--
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.
