[11159] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX - have they really connected? (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Wed Mar 23 13:10:16 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: digex@ss1.digex.net (Doug Humphrey)
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 1994 00:36:11 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9403221504.A25388-0100000@ss1.digex.net> from "Doug Humphrey" at Mar 22, 94 03:49:31 pm
> 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
Excuse me, Doug, but let's look this RIGHT in the face and quit sidestepping the
issue -- obfuscation doesn't serve anyone's purpose.
1) Digex was set up in part under ANS's Diamond Mine deal, right?
That means you had to put up little or NO capital to get your
connection. Do you in fact have some kind of revenue share
arrangement with them? If so, then just what <DID> you buy from them?
You can't have purchased "Internet connectivity", really, as there is
nobody to stroke that check to. If you are relying on their "clout" to
get you the connectivity you need and want, that's fine, but let's
understand what's going on here and be straight with one another. None
of this is "secret".
I preferred NOT to rely on that "clout", and instead negotiated a deal,
called a CIX membership agreement, that works instead on the principles
of mutual respect and accomodation, as well as mutual benefit. For that
deal I signed a check for a sum of money. That's a CONTRACT, based on
the normal consideration and a meeting of the minds. I then negotiated
a SECOND contract with Sprint for the transit of those packets that I
now have agreement on the routing arrangements for, at a stated price
for stated services.
That's a difference of business strategy and position. You traded clout
and promises (which ANS, in truth, can't honestly make except from a bully
pulpit outside their own customer base without committing fraud), I traded
money for assurances and a set of contractual terms.
Note that I discussed these issues at some length with Joel Maloff
of ANS (who isn't any longer at ANS) when he came to Chicago to meet with
me. While I understood the answers I got, the ones I <did not> get were
more illuminating. When pressed, ANS admitted that it couldn't guarantee
me connectivity to other network providers. It could make an <effort>.
That was it. Therefore, to get the kind of assurances <I> deemed
necessary for my business, I needed the CIX membership . "My connection
partners will make an effort" is, IMHO, ENTIRELY unsuitable for anyone
out there selling commercial-grade connectivity. Try selling that line
to ANY company on ANY other product and you'll get laughed out of the
room. Therefore, the CIX membership was necessary.
The rest was simple economics and spreadsheet work.
2) You have an IP number. What good is it if you WERE NOT sold transit to
use with that shiny new number? Just a number, natch.
3) You sell leased line and/or SLIP and PPP connectivity to customers,
right? Again, what good is that IP number to your customer unless
someone is selling them service to go with that number? No good at all.
4) What assurance <RIGHT NOW> do you give your customers who buy connectivity
from you? ANY? In fact, beyond ANS direct attachments, you can make NO
representations of ANY kind of what you can provide and be within the
bounds of ethical behavior. You can say "we'll make an effort". That's
it. If you're not disclosing this to your customers you'll get burned
eventually. If you are, I would hope you're the only game in town,
otherwise someone (like me, perhaps) could open a location in your back
yard and eat your lunch.
MCSNet, on the other hand, can wave the CIX agreement in hand and say
with a clear voice and conscience that we have an agreement with the other
members that traffic to and from direct customers of those members WILL be
routed on a best-effort basis, and that we <will> cooperate to fix
problems as they arise. That's what I got for my money. I consider it
a damn good trade. IF I get screwed down the road I have a big stick
to hit those other providers with, and in fact can probably hit them
<hard>. Those who harp on "restraint of trade" should instead look
for violations of the policies that everyone in this agreed to. THOSE
are issues that deserve litigation, if and when they arise. So far it
would appear they have not. Certainly I've noticed nothing that leads me
to believe there is a problem here.
Since I think that my customers, from the individual paying a buck an hour for
SLIP on up DESERVE that kind of connectivity, and in fact that's the minimum I'm
willing to live with myself, the choice was obvious.
The point of the CIX is for resellers to get together and under a fixed set of
terms arrange to pass traffic between then. That's it. That doesn't prevent
other arrangements which also happen to be in the best interest of those who are
parties to them.
--
--
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.
