[11146] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: What is an "Internet reseller"?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Mar 22 20:46:51 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: matthew@echo.com (Matthew Kaufman)
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 12:11:52 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, matthew@echo.com, com-priv@psi.com, fidelman@civicnet.org
In-Reply-To: <199403221731.JAA01983@echo.com> from "Matthew Kaufman" at Mar 22, 94 09:31:23 am
>
> Excellent. So CIX members will be blocking access to large providers like
> AOL, CompuServ, Prodigy as they all add ways to interactively
> access the Internet, right?
Not any more than World, or MCSNet used to be. When we started selling
SLIP and PPP access we joined the CIX. Could we have found some way to
backdoor a link without the membership? Sure. I'm a damn good programmer,
and am quite aware of how to do that kind of thing -- it would be completely
undetectable. Would it be RIGHT and ETHICAL? NO. Will I take a contract
from some other provider to write this for him or her? No, especially now
that I know what people would use it for.
Again, an FTP from a HOST machine owned by a customer of a member is not
only perfectly fine in most of our minds, its actually PROTECTED by the
agreement we signed.
What is NOT protected -- and I STRESS AGAIN for those who haven't read the
entire treatises I've posted in the past -- the word is NOT PROTECTED, NOT
required to be banned -- is arrangements where someone sources packets from
their system, through a direct customer of a CIX member, to the Internet.
That is commonly called a "backdoor link" or an "indirect customer" in the
industry.
Tools such as Mosaic are designed to run with a direct connection.
What AOL has in mind I don't know; I haven't seen it yet.
> -matthew
>
> ps. I don't care WHAT the rules are, as long as they're in writing, and
> apply to all players. I would suggest that it can be a problem at
> small numbers of users, like in <10-person "co-ops", though... just
> as much as it can be a problem for the big players to be "cheating"
> (or even unaware, perhaps)
They are, and again, the CIX agreement specifies POSITIVE obligations, NOT
negative ones. There is no obligation to block back-door traffic -- but
there is also no obligation to carry it.
CompuServe, AOL and Prodigy MAY at some point cross that line. The line
isn't at the host access level (ie: ftp, irc, etc from their host machines)
and never was. I would hope at that point they are ethical enough to join
the CIX as members in their own right.
You don't see me clamoring for World.STD.COM to join the CIX. There's a
reason for that -- they are quite well protected as customers of Alternet
behind Alternet's membership. This is true even though Barry's operation
is <huge> by public access site standards.
I joined the CIX knowing full well what the "cut here" line was, and
knowing that I was crossing it. I joined because I wanted the benefits of
membership, and behave as an ethical businessperson. I intend to continue
that membership so long as the CIX continues to serve as a useful tool in
my toolbelt, and as long as the organization behaves in an ethical manner.
So far they have, and so far I'm happy.
I <do> use the membership as a marketing tool. It IS one (just like
membership in AERA is one for an engine rebuilding shop); I can honestly
say that I have a signed agreement that is supposed to bring connectivity
between MCSNet customers and the direct customers of all the other members
(roughly 30 providers). Without the membership you cannot make this claim;
to do so would be fraudulent.
Others can cheat if they want to; I don't run my company that way -- never
have and never will.
--
--
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.
