[12125] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Superhighway & Denver Airport
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Luce)
Fri May 6 16:26:23 1994
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 12:29:27 +0400 (EDT)
From: Doug Luce <doug@telerama.lm.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
"Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com> writes:
>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.
What part of the CIX member agreements or other contracts needs to be
enforced? It's perfectly okay for a non-CIX member or direct customer of
a member (i.e. an "indirect" cusomter) to get routing to the CIX and via
the CIX. Why do you think non-CIX sites must be blocked? That's not
what the CIX is for.
Doug Luce
Telerama Public Access Internet
Pittsburgh, PA
