[11149] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Humphrey)
Tue Mar 22 22:54:59 1994
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 15:49:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Doug Humphrey <digex@ss1.digex.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com
>In msg <Pine.3.89.9403171326.A23181-0100000@ss1.digex.net> Doug
>Humphrey <digex@ss1.digex.net> writes:
>
>| So, the problem is that we are both a reseller, and a non-reseller.
>
>One cannot be both.
Says who? You? Excuse ME! I had not realized that in asking
the question, raising the issue, I would have the Master Of The
Universe here to define physical law and other immutable facts for me!
I'll go shoot myself now! Thanks for the enlightenment!
> If DIGEX really has two sides to its operations
>and wants them to be treated completely independently, each part
>should be incorporated separately, and left to operate at arms-length
>from each other.
The seperate incorporations would be trivial; who is going to come
and do an in depth analysis and investigation to prove that we are
at arms-length? Who will pay for that? Those kinds of things
cost way more that $10,000 to do. Not a realistic requirement.
>The corporation that is a strict non-reseller (i.e. all the datagrams
>go to and from its own machines, not its customers' machines) will be
>treated as an ANS customer and presumably will have CIX access.
Maybe what is needed is to understand the INTENT of the CIX "no
backdoor" policy. I have a funny feeling that this thing didn't
start out as a "anyone with an IP address has obviously been
resold to" issue, but more a "if you sell to a network of machines
then the average utilization on yout flat fee connection is going
o be much higher" issue, really designed to get discourage a T1
being sold from really pushing T1 data rates, which it is
much more likely to do if it is serving downstream providers...
Doug
