[12112] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Superhighway & Denver Airport
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Norton)
Fri May 6 01:25:24 1994
From: steve@mailhost.interaccess.com (Steve Norton)
To: nettech@crl.com (Joseph W. Stroup)
Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 20:04:05 -40962758 (CDT)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9405041025.A4630-0100000@crl.crl.com> from "Joseph W. Stroup" at May 4, 94 10:02:25 am
> Until the CIX gets the (Bal...s ) to stop traffic from sites that are non
> members there is no teeth to their threats. Just because something might
> go away is no reason to keep people from using it, while its there. What
> do you get for $10,000 in the ENFORCEMENT dept. Not much. Non CIX sites
> should be blocked. This includes ANS & Sprint and any other group that
> has customers who are non members. As long as I can get full connectivity
> without paying why should I.
Does anyone on the CIX have any kind of International connection? I've
always thought that if CIX does try something silly like blocking certain
types of data, the NSF could easily retaliate and cut off all CIX traffic
to international sites.
Assuming everyone on Alternet/UUNet/PsiNet is on CIX (NOT), they would have
about 30% of the US Internet. Still a sizeable network, but if they tried
blocking any traffic, it would turn into another Compserve/Prodigy/Delphi
style system.
CIX really cant have any enforcement powers until they have respect, which
they wont have until they have a significant portion of the Internet.
(Read as 'never', assuming the government keeps building nets and CIX members
stick to their T1's)
