[11279] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Proposal for CIX membership fees
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barbara L. Dijker)
Mon Mar 28 08:04:17 1994
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 11:56:46 -0700
From: "Barbara L. Dijker" <barb.dijker@labyrinth.com>
To: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
> It strikes me that since no scheme I've seen here for CIX terms is
> objective enough to work to most people's satisfaction, how about setting
> the CIX member fee in a similar manner:
A rather interesting proposal. However it completely
misses the fundamental problem with the CIX. The CIX
_must_ separate membership from network services.
Not all ISPs connect _directly_ to the CIX. There is
absolutly no reason for an ISP to pay $10K a year simply to
agree to "no settlement" and receive no direct CIX pipe.
Further, it is simply absurd, technically and
economically, for the CIX to expect or even suggest that
all ISPs connect to a central point such as the CIX. The
Internet got this far by hierarchical configurations:
both network and administration. The CIX is supposed to
be a trade association, not necessarily an ISP itself.
Also, I feel your basic definition of ISP is seriously
flawed. Under your definition, my house where I work is an
ISP!! A company which provides IP connections to
employees for telecommuniting would also be an ISP in
your definition. That is wrong. An organization should
be considered an ISP iff they offer IP connections to the
_general_public_ - regardless of the size of the target
market. A university which provides connectivity to
faculty, staff, and students does not offer connections
to the general public and should not be considered an ISP.
If the CIX would simply separate membership fees from
fees for provision of network services, there would be no
significant barrier for mom and pop ISPs (they are
blooming everywhere) to become CIX members. $10K to sign
a "no-settlement" agreement is formidable when actual
service is acquired elsewhere. A $1K/yr membership fee
is reasonable to cover CIX administrative expenses. All
other CIX fees should only be imposed for actual direct
pipes... and of course pipes should only be provisioned
for members.
The current scheme of direct connect to the CIX worked
well in the early stages when all the members were big and
few - it was easier than individual interconnects
between members. However, the model does not scale nor
apply well for/to the future.
Barbara L. Dijker
barb.dijker@labyrinth.com - NeXT mail and MIME able
==========================================================
Labyrinth Computer Services, PO Box 4626, Boulder CO 80306
Voice: +1 303 589 2327, FAX: +1 303 443 9718
