[11313] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Proposal for CIX membership fees
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Mon Mar 28 23:36:53 1994
To: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, gwh@crl.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Mar 1994 16:27:39 PST."
<94Mar27.162750pst.5788@cesium.clock.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 10:19:33 -0800
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>
>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.
[...]
>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.
Right now nobody is subsidizing anyone. What is happening is that
the politics of who connects to what legitimately, which have always
been more than a little muddled, have been enshrined in that condition
at one level by the fee structure. Among the large players, the fee
serves its purpose: everyone plays fair and equal. To the little guys
it's a sword of damocles. They either have to pay it or risk losing
connectivity at some point in the future.
Obviously there are non-CIX providers. I strongly suspect that few
of them object to the idea of being CIX members. It would be a
positive sign for the industry association to move forward with
something to recognize and accomidate that segment of the industry,
and not continue to try and ignore it. Admittedly, "allowing"
backdoor traffic is a workable interim solution, but it won't
work forever. It's poor policy to not try and really solve the
problems.
-george william herbert
speaking only for myself
