[11434] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sat Apr 2 16:08:17 1994
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 12:22:42 -0500
From: "Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>"
To: com-priv@psi.com
" automated anonymous remailing service."
Subject: re: The whole CIX concept is flawed
Per Gregers Bilse <bilse@eu.net> writes:
>On the Internet you will find
> - no police
> - no law
> - no courts
> - no authorities
> - no security
>(That's one of the reasons it's working so well.)
I agree, and am well aware of all these things, I've been on the Arpanet,
then Internet for a long time. Voluntary cooperation can help replace these
things.
>The only safe haven for ISPs like you is the CIX. The CIX is the
>closest you can come to an authority and a free market; and it's
>actually quite good at it. If you call that a protection racket,
>you must have been growing up in a tin can.
Why is an "authority" of whatever type you see the CIX being needed for a
"free" market? Some type of private or public authority is needed to defend
property rights to allow a market to exist, however in this case there are
existing authorities external to the net which enforce property rights and
contracts.
>Except in one particular place, where there is a guarantee of
>free exchange: the CIX.
Only among those who join the CIX, which isn't everyone. And if this is
achieved simply because of this agreement that people sign, as I mentioned
there is no need for overhead of the CIX. We could start an association
where people sign a form and send it in and we file it for a few dollars.
>You want that guarantee for free. Sorry, can't be done.
If we felt we needed the guarentee (rather than depending on everyones
rational self interest, which is how most of society functions anyway (if
everyone chose to break the laws at the same time there is nothing the
police could do)), then we wouldn't expect it to be free, but just a few
dollars. *Why* couldn't that be done. Exactly what is preventing it, and
*why* is the extra overhead of the CIX needed? If *each* provider wishes
the guarentee, why shouldn't we cooperate to get it cheaply?
> For one thing, there are real operational costs (manpower, equipment, office
>space, etc) associated with the CIX itself.
Again, this has *nothing* to do with the agreement you were referring to,
this is confusing the interconnect/backbone-like aspects of the CIX with
this agreement.
>The fact that you transit via somebody else doesn't reduce the need for the
>CIX to be
>there.
> Why should you, as an ISP, be allowed to get all the benefits
>of CIX membership, without chipping in? Foul play.
Why should you be allowed to get all the benefits of backbones and
interconnect points around the world which you don't chip in for? The
reason is that the funding is distributed, the people paying for
connections to those backbones/interconnect points, etc. pay for them. Any
that we connect to we will pay for the connection. Any we don't connect to
shouldn't be trying to charge us, they are charging the ISPs directly
connecting to them, its "Foul Play" to try to bill indirect customers.
>As a matter of fact, the CIX has been so important for the
>development of commercial Internet Service Provision, that if the CIX
>hadn't been here well before you, you wouldn't be here at all.
>Others sow, and you just want to reap? Foul play.
This doesn't make sense. The arpanet was there before the Internet and the
CIX and helped lead to them eventually. Did you pay US taxes (you seem to
be from Europe by the address). No? We sow and you just plan to reap? Foul
Play? You don't think so? How is it different? The people involved did it
out of their own interest at the time it was done. I had no choice in the
matter and don't wish to be sent a bill now for something I didn't
participate in and am making no use of, either they found a way to make
money at it or not, thats not my concern. We are starting with the way
things are this moment, historical reasons aren't an argument for keeping
them this way.
>The CIX is also the closest thing we can come to a trading
>association, setting standards for Internet Service Provision.
There are lots of voluntary standards organizations that don't charge any
or much membership fees.
>In the future, the CIX may
>well develop into something significantly more substantial, but you
>don't want to take part?
What if I don't believe that it will, or see other things more worthwhile
to committ resources to developing more substantial things?
> You don't want to join the other ISPs in building our common future? F...
>well, you >probably know what I was going to say.
Sure I do. What if I just don't agree with *your* idea of our common
future that you wish to force down my throat? If its a common future, am I
not allowed to participate in questioning things and trying to influence
that future, as I am attempting to do here? Or am I limited to accepting
what has been predetermined as THE way things are and ever shall be as laid
out by other people?
>You seem to be extremely hung up over the money issue.
Largely a matter of principle. Its $10k now, which for an agreement, a
piece of paper, is out of line. What prevents them from charging $100k or
more, if the charge doesn't correlate to what we get in exchange? Should we
underprice them and start a competitive agreement association, $50 a pop,
one time? What prevents other CIX2, CIX3, etc., from trying to do the same
thing? Without the "police, laws", etc. which you comment don't exist, the
way to stop irrational policies is to refuse to give into them before they
go out of control. Perhaps this isn't that much money now, but the whole
model is wrong. Lets stop it now.
>If you want to become a certified accountant, doesn't that cost? A doctor? A
>taxi driver? If in no other way, then because you need to study, and
>learn -- but in many cases, certificates cost real money, for no
>_obvious_ reason.
True, and so I disagree with all of those as well and would change them if
possible. In this case there isn't a government forcing us into it, it is
still a voluntary situation and we can try to stop it now before it becomes
some sort of irrational non-voluntary mandate. And the issue isn't whether
there is an _obvious_ reason, but whether there is a *rational* one. I can
see the _obvious_ reasons people are joining the CIX, but to me if you look
past the surface, which seems to be non-obvious to some people, there
doesn't seem to be a *rational* reason to pay that much (though there may
possible be to pay a tiny amount).
> Who has made you believe you can become an ISP for
>free? If your budget breaks because of a one-off fee of $10k, you
>probably can't even survive a disk crash or two.
What if the $10k that would have gone to the CIX were the buffer being
kept so that we could survive a disk crash or whatever? Regardless of
whether the money could be spent, it isn't rational on a tight budget to
waste $10k.
> Does the Internet stand to gain by having barrel-scrapers like you join in?
>I don't
>think so -- personally, of course.
Which is interesting, since in reality its the grass roots small providers
that will help create the competition in this market that will benefit the
end-users. It won't benefit the existing ISPs however of course, if thats
what you are referring to. I don't know where the internet will end up.
Either large telecom companies will get in and drive *everybody* out, or it
will be a mixture of backbone/regional nets and lots of small ISPs, who
need to be prepared not to be taken advantage of by the larger backbone ISP
providers.
The computer and software industry in general has really been shaped by
lots of small grass roots efforts (some of which have become huge now of
course).
