[11258] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Universities (was: What is an "Internet reseller"?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Glenn S. Tenney)
Sun Mar 27 12:16:16 1994
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 10:57:01 -0800
To: Simon Poole <poole@magnolia.eunet.ch>
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
At 12:30 PM 3/26/94 +0100, Simon Poole wrote:
...
Ok, I was over generalizing a bit... and when I said that since the CIX
board didn't say anything they must agree I knew that wasn't necessarily
true -- but it did get a few people out of the woodwork...
>The current conflict seems to have it roots in people suddenly realizing
>that the "Internet" isn't what they thought it was and they want the CIX
>to give them back their dream (for free).
I think this is absolutely the wrong perception of the "conflict". Let me
give you an example...
Someone posted a while ago that MIT has IP services going to every dorm and
student facility on and OFF campus. They have thousands and thousands
(etc.) of machines each pingable, each with an IP address, each capable of
(and likely using) Mosaic, etc.
If I recall correctly, Karl felt that CIX' terms wouldn't require that they
be a member. Yet those same terms would, based on my interpretation of
Karl's perspective, require a co-op of say 10 people wanting IP to their
homes to be a CIX member. Such a co-op (which I would like to join) want
to pay for the service they receive (ie. pay their NSP the going rate), but
(a) don't believe that they are resellers, and (b) the CIX fee would nearly
double out of pocket costs for each co-op member.
I can only conclude that the CIX terms, the way Karl describes them, is NOT
based on bandwidth, usage, capacity, routers between the net and the
machines, passing on packets, IP addresses, number of machines, type of
programs run, or on any other objective basis -- the CIX' terms appear to
be there strictly to keep the cash flow within it's members, and to keep
the members' cash flows higher (e.g. to keep one person from signing up and
paying for a single 56kb full time connection and routing through to 9 of
their friends for a total of ten machines and therefore "depriving" that
member from 9 monthly fees). Sure, the concept of a CIX is great, but I'm
talking about the terms of who should become a member and who needn't
become a member.
I would guess, now that NearNet is separate, that if MIT wants CIX access
that they would have to pay for it, as would any university charging
students for net or computer access. If not, then the co-op I mentioned
surely shouldn't have to either. Let me anticipate a point... Yes, the
co-op members would each chip in their share of expenses, but MIT charges
each student too so what's the difference?
---
Glenn Tenney
tenney@netcom.com Amateur radio: AA6ER
(415) 574-3420 Fax: (415) 574-0546
