[11281] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Proposal for CIX membership fees
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Doran)
Mon Mar 28 08:37:51 1994
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Mar 1994 10:57:07 PST."
<199403261857.KAA02208@netcom9.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1994 16:27:39 -0800
From: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org>
In message <199403261857.KAA02208@netcom9.netcom.com>, Glenn S. Tenney writes:
| Proposal to current member of CIX:
[BARRNET(etc)-style variable pricing scheme, formula based on
bandwidth and company income/department budget]
One of the most interesting things about the CIX, and what, IMHO,
makes it a decent DMZ, is that everyone connects to it on an exactly
equal footing.
Each CIX member pays exactly the same fee. Each CIX member that is
directly connected to CIX-WEST (and presumably other touch-down points
if and as they arise) may do so with exactly the same bandwidth. Each
CIX member talks to every one of the others.
If you start playing games with direct-connection bandwidth, things
will likely get quite complicated in terms of actual traffic flow. If
some of the directly-connected NSPs' pipes were to be completely
saturated by one of the other directly-connected NSPs (and the CIX
members it transits for), you can bet that screaming would be heard,
and settlements will be thought about. Unless, of course, everyone
moved up to the higher bandwidth simultaneously.
I have no particular technical objection to the CIX having
variable-rate fees based on company size, but the overall income must
cover all the CIX costs, and the fees to the big players must be
cheap, or it simply won't work.
Philosophically, though, I don't like the idea of the big players
being required to subsidize the small players, which is exactly what
will be happening.
I also don't like the idea of the small players subsidizing the big
players, but from my point-of-view, that's not what's happening in the
current CIX arrangement.
Sean.
