[11228] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Universities (was: What is an "Internet reseller"?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark R. Ludwig)
Sat Mar 26 03:25:06 1994
From: "Mark R. Ludwig" <Mark-Ludwig@uai.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <199403240538.VAA02171@netcom9.netcom.com>
from "Glenn S. Tenney" on Wed, 23 Mar 1994 21:37:51 PST.
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 20:48:20 -0800
>>>>> "Glenn" == Glenn S. Tenney <tenney@netcom.com> writes:
Glenn> and get com-priv back to other discussions...
(*Snore*) (*Snort*) (*Snore*) (*Hiccup*)
What? Did somebody say something?
Seriously, I've been reading the discussion. First I concluded that
the CIX contract was woefully terse on defining its terms. Now I
think it's an impossible problem, and Karl's harping on "generally
accepted definition within the trade" concept is the only workable one
with the current contract. I either hate lawyers for being so verbose
or English for being so ambiguous and requiring such verbosity or
both. It would be easier if the CIX just made an arbitrary decision
(e.g., "if you can 'ping' the address, it's connected") and lived with
the result. In my example, one could use socks or term to "get
around" needing to be a customer. Does it _really_ matter? We
already know that it's okay for Huge Conglomerate, Ltd. to be a
"customer" and hide thousands of employees, so what's the difference
anyway? If this really _is_ about capacity or bandwidth consumption
at the CIX router/network, then price it as such.
Hey Peter, you must be working on a route recycling service by now.
Surely old routes are better than no routes at all.$$
--
INET: Mark-Ludwig@UAI.COM NIC: ML255 ICBM: USA; Lower Left Coast
"You can't brew beer out of genetically-cultivated barley; they've
bred the 'buzz' out of it. I've tried." -- UEO Chief Bickle
