[11451] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anonymous)
Sun Apr 3 03:51:27 1994
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 23:43:22 -0500
From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Picture a couple of guys asking a shopkeeper for a monthly payment to
"guarantee" nothing will happen to him, they will protect him from
unspecified others who might cause him problems. The shopkeeper says that
nothing is causing him problems now, who might give him problems, why
should he pay? What rational reason should he have to expect trouble in the
future when he doesn't have any now? The fellows just keep saying they
"can't guarantee" that nothing will happen to him if he doesn't pay, that
he is taking a risk by not paying. The shopkeeper asks whether they intend
to do anything to him if he doesn't pay.
And of course they insist that they don't plan to do anything, they just
can't "guarantee" his safety if he doesn't pay them. The threat is never
stated openly, but implied, people just keep saying that they can't
"guarantee" safety if they aren't paid, that it is a dangerous world out
there and he needs someone to protect him. They insist it isn't much
money, just pay it and don't deal with the hastle and the risk. This may
have no correlation with real life mob protection sales (where the threat
is probably actually stated openly), but it provides an analogy.
The point is that this seems to be how the discussion is going now.
People can't give a rational reason for why an ISP would cut off
routing,and won't say that they intend to, they just can't "guarantee" it
if the CIX isn't paid. It isn't much money they keep saying. Pay it and
don't deal with the hastle and the risk. Is the threat from others just an
illusion as it is in the case of the "protection" racket, is the
implication that the CIX or individual CIX members might cut off routing?
If someone asked me for $10k/yr for insurance against meteorites, I
wouldn't see any reason to pay it just because some think it "isn't much
money, you should have that much in your budget". Possibly, but why spend
it on something as useless as meteorite insurance?
If its in the rational self interest of ISPs to route traffic, how many
ISPs are going to hurt their own business irrationally? Will the CIX or one
of its members decide to cut off routing to a small provider just to make
an "example" and show why they should be paid?
Is anyone out there considering cutting off routing and using this tactic,
or is this not really a real risk? Is it perhaps based on past experiences
and fears which may not really be a problem anymore?
