[11442] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: your mail
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Sat Apr 2 23:28:06 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: "Anonymous <"Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>"@Mercury.mcs.com>"@Mercury.mcs.com (Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>)
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 1994 17:48:18 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9404021722.AA09904@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> from "Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>" at Apr 2, 94 12:22:42 pm
> >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.
Ok, then start one. Put your money where your mouth is.
First you need to get Alternet, PSI, SprintLink and ANS to sign. If you
don't, at least in the US, you're screwed. What if they say "no"?
> >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?
First, what self-interest?
If I'm "Mr Big ISP" why would I not tell you to "go f* yourself" when you ask
me for such an agreement? After all, if I do I can put you out of business,
since you won't be able to talk to my customers, and lord knows I have more
customers than you do in the area. Then I start picking off your unhappy
customers who can't talk to the people they want to. You, on the other
hand, can wave your hands in the air and scream, but there is NOTHING you
can do to stop me from eating you customer by customer. You're doomed.
The big ISPs won't do that, right? That would be "bad manners"? Call PSI
and tell them you want a resale-capable connection. See what you get told.
Then come back here and tell us. I already know, because I've already asked.
Call ANS and ask for said connection. Have $80,000 ready.
Call Alternet and ask for said connection. Have $8,000 for BGP peering
+ $5,000 for the T1 setup, plus the CIX membership fee, plus your standard
costs. All in all? About $60,000 when you factor in the line charge.
This assumes they haven't changed their mind again and decided to just
say "NO" instead. They used to just say "NO".
Or call SprintLink and ask for said connection. Pay for the T1 + CIX
membership. Best deal around, AND they're technically competent.
Start asking providers if they wish such an agreement, and if they'll sign
your prototype agreement. Put the thing under my nose, and tell me who
ELSE you have who's agreed to it. If it makes sense, I'll sign. If it
doesn't, I won't.
That's how business works.
> >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.
AHahahaha! Like ANSI perhaps? Ever order one of their "standards"? :-)
> >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?
Then do it and quit snarking about what is already here. If you have a
better mousetrap, you'll catch lots of mice. If you intend to destroy
rather than build, on the other hand....
> > 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?
No, if you see a different future than GO DO IT. Put your money and effort
where your mouth is. You want an association which has a $10 registration
fee and some kind of policy? Fine. Set one up. See if it flies. Start
putting proposals under people's noses, and see how many sign the
paperwork. Until you've actually DONE SOMETHING you come off as a whiney
little brat who has just been told that no, that candy bar really isn't free
and you can't have it since you don't want to pay.
> >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?
Uh, the current agreements run for 2 years. If you do it now you're locked
in for 2 years at a fixed cost. If you wait, well, yes, you could get
screwed. What's the best business decision?
> 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?
Nothing. So go to it. If you want "insurance", in your words, in the
interim, then buy a membership. Or do without and see what happens.
> 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.
What's your "right" model? Again, put your money where your mouth is.
Let's see that mythical agreement, and a list of ISPs who have signed it.
When you get a few of the big ones to sign then it becomes interesting to
the small ISPs. Until then you have disconnected ISPs who can't get
anywhere anyway, so the agreement means nothing.
> 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).
I disagree, and feel that I am getting good value for my money. Further, I
believe that if the other small ISPs put in their change that the
big-monster-ISPs that would love to eat us ALL for lunch would be truly
hosed in their quest, and that we would have a stable, non-discriminatory
base on which we ALL could build. We'd have interconnect points in every
corner of the country, which would means a nice CHEAP way of guaranteeing
interconnectivity to other ISPs. We could negotiate our long-line costs
with the best players, without worrying about resale agreements from the
large ISPs. In short, the playing field would TRULY be level for the first
time. We are so very, very close to that ideal today.
You wish to destroy this. I stand vehemently opposed.
> 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.
See my other post to this list as to why your model will destroy, not help,
the small ISP marketplace. You're cutting off your own foot.
Or perhaps, Mr. Anonymous, you're really someone from ANS who wants to see
the entire CIX model fail. It wouldn't surprise me. How do we know that
your motives aren't purely profit-oriented, and that the failure of the CIX
and the rise of a few monopoly-minded large ISPs are EXACTLY what you want
-- and that you're "one of them"?
Hmmmmmmm.......?
> 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.
I find your motives suspect, especially since you won't identify yourself.
In fact, I think you might be an agent for those very large ISPs who would
love to see the small businesspeople such as myself put OUT of business.
That alone is reason enough for me to oppose your efforts to the best of
my ability.
Finally, if you really ARE a small ISP connected through SprintLink, I know
why you're posting as "Anonymous". Sprint asked us point-blank to join the
CIX if we were going to do resale, and stated clearly that it was policy.
If you're a Sprint customer, and you're doing resale but not joining the
CIX, you're violating an explicit conversation and agreement you had with
them.
Yes, under those circumstances (breach of agreement) I'd be posting as
"anonymous" too, lest I have bigger problems than CIX connectivity.
--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
