[11214] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Options (was Re: What is an "Internet reseller"?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Fri Mar 25 15:34:17 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: marc@MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 00:30:20 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, com-priv@psi.com, tenney@netcom.com, washburn@cix.org
In-Reply-To: <9403250502.AA21240@steve-dallas.MIT.EDU> from "Marc Horowitz" at Mar 25, 94 00:02:50 am
>
> >> Because they're not selling the services to others (engaged in the
> >> practice of IP packet resale).
>
> What is "others"? At MIT, any group on the net pays $27/month per IP
> address for MITnet service. This includes everything you expect:
> packet transit, nameservice, telephone support, etc. The network
> operations group operates entirely out of this income, including the
> hardware, service contracts, salaries, etc. This does not include
> stuff which comes out of general institute overhead (like heat).
>
> Is this reselling?
Well, perhaps it is.
I guess you could make the same kind of claim for any company (or
university) that bills out to departments for infrastructure (ie: they're
"reselling" electricity) or the like.
On the other hand, I doubt you'd find a single CIX member, MCSNet included,
that is interested in blocking passage of packets by such an arragnement.
This is why most of the other people (the "2 to 10" crowd as Dick St.
Peters points out) are hoodwinked as well.
> Does MIT have to join the CIX to guarantee routing to the CIX's
> customers?
Guarantee is a strong word. Let's define our terms here and stop putting
words in one another's mouths and fingers.
I think that part of the confusion here, and part of the bile being flung
around by some participants in this discussion who would like to paint this
thing as a "right", is caused by exactly that -- the concept of a "right".
Do you have a <right> to transit of your packets from some other provider
to an MCSNet customer without a settlement being negotiated and charged?
Do you have a <right> to talk to any person on another network provider's
infrastructure at all?
Do you, in fact, have a <right> to having your packets routed AT ALL beyond
the contract(s) you negotiate with your provider(s)? Does your provider
have a <right> to force another provider to accept those packets without a
mutual agreement on terms and conditions?
In other words, do you have a <RIGHT> to force someone else to give you
something for free or on your terms (routing & transit) that they charge
others (particularly their customers) for on a mutually negotiated basis?
I say, and loudly, <no>.
Some others here appear to be saying "yes". Or they are being deliberately
dishonest and obfuscating the actual issue.
I believe that this is the bottom line in this debate. As the basic premise
of the participants is different -- on the one hand, you have me, die-hard
and admitted capitalist, in business to make a profit and please my customer
base -- and on the other hand, you have the "Internet ought to be free"
crowd (in one form or another) on the other side of the debate -- there is
no real basis for further discussion of the substantive points here.
In a recent message it was suggested that the entire CIX membership
disagrees with me. It was stated that I don't speak for the CIX board
(I never made that claim -- it should be obvious that I don't as I'm not ON
the board).
Well, you know, I don't speak for the entire CIX membership. I never
claimed to, and I never claimed this was an official CIX statement. In
point of fact, I speak for MCSNet as the CEO and President of the company.
That's it.
MOST OF ALL, I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE CIX HAD A POLICY OF BLOCKING TRAFFIC
WHICH ORIGINATED IN BACKDOOR RESALE ARRANGEMENTS. Get that through your
heads folks. Those who want to rant that this is the case have the burden
of proof on them -- put up your evidence.
Let's not be dishonest about this stuff. Nobody has made this claim! Several
people have said "do I <have> to join the CIX?", as if the CIX was somehow
forcing policy in the negative (ie: don't route this) sense. THAT IS NOT
THE TRUTH, AND THOSE WHO HAVE READ THE MEMBERSHIP AGREEMENT KNOW IT.
Why don't the people who want to argue that I have a "warped" view of this
READ the membership agreement FIRST. Then come back here and debate the
issue, which is not whether you "MUST" join the CIX. It is whether or not
you <should> join the CIX, and whether or not you get something of value
for your membership fee.
This is not about the <CIX> blocking routes. It is about <members> having
the choice to do so <if they see fit> absent an agreement to the contrary.
I happen to <support> that right -- fully -- absent an agreement to the
contrary. I happen to think that such agreements are a <good> thing for
the industry as they reduce Balkanization, increase portability and
competition, and in general lead to a healthier marketplace with fewer
distortions.
The CIX membership agreement <is> one such agreement, under very specific
terms and conditions. Again, the agreement contains NO negative (ie: thou
shalt not route indirect packets) agreements of ANY kind. It contains only
<positive> obligations (thou <shalt> route packets originating in
specific places).
Is this debate really about whether or not you have a right to <take>
something of value (my routing capability to and from my customers and
others) without MCSNet having the right to insist on payment in some form
that we <mutually> agree on (in kind, in money, or in gratitude) for
that service? Do you, as a customer, say, of Alternet, have the right to
dictate to <my> company the terms on which I must route your traffic?
I think that in fact that is exactly the position some folks have taken in
this discussion.
--
--
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.
