[11433] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sat Apr 2 15:13:04 1994
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 12:13:10 -0500
From: "Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>"
To: com-priv@psi.com
" automated anonymous remailing service."
Subject: Re: Use market forces to deal with routing questions & charging
George Herbert <gwh@crl.com> writes:
>I would like to disagree with this. I think that the CIX is (almost)
>the best way to do cooperative routing. I think their fee structures
>are in line with an operation with that many T-1's coming in the door
>and being internally routed, plus the managerial overhead (I have no
>problem with Bill Washburn making $50k or more, I don't doubt he
>earns it...).
I agree about the fees seeming reasonable in terms of those paying for a
direct physical connection. I called them a "backbone", which is perhaps
the wrong term. Basically, I trying to get accross the point that
basically the function of backbones is to interconnect various networks,
which happen to be geographically distributed. People pay to connect to a
backbone because they get their traffic routed to the other nets connected
to the backbone. In the same way those connecting to CIX pay to get their
traffic routed to the other direct connects. In the CIX case the providers
are paying for the long distance lines rather than the "interconnect"
provider. Regardless, it makes sense to pay for physical infrastructure
which provides value. It costs money to run a backbone or an "interconnect"
point like this, (which is really all ISPs are). And those connecting
directly to that infrastructure are the ones that should pay for it (and
pass the cost along to their customers as part of the price they are
charged). An ISP shouldn't need to give out a customer list to *their*
provider who will then go and try to get more money out of them (which is
what CIX is trying to do).
>It _isn't_ getting into the backbone game.
As I mentioned, I used the wrong term, I guess its the "interconnect"
game, which is what backbones do but also provide the service over a wider
geographic area (hence being of more value and presumably costing more than
an "interconnect" point).
> Are you really afraid that one
>of the big providers will be petty enough to cut you off
>specifically as opposed to as a class if they decide they
>don't like transiting that traffic?
I don't know what they will do. No one admits to their being a rational
argument as to how an ISP can cut off routing without hurting its own
customers, yet people still fear that happening enough to wish to join the
CIX. Since I don't see a rational model for whats going on, I don't know
what to expect exactly so I'd rather be cautious since I don't want others
involved here to be impacted by my choice to argue these issues.
