[12127] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Superhighway & Denver Airport
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph W. Stroup)
Fri May 6 20:00:26 1994
Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 15:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
To: Doug Luce <doug@telerama.lm.com>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405061206.N7710-0100000@computer.lm.com>
If my site is a commercial reseller attached to a CIX member Like say ANS
and I get transit/connected to CIX sites are you trying to tell me thats
ok? No its not. Again, ANS is the backbone - If they can pay $10k and all
the smaller providers attach and not pay...get my meaning. Same thing for
Sprint - if I attach and re-sell & want the CIX connectivity, then I must
join. Thats Sprints position last I heard. Otherwise face being blocked.
If there was a cheaper way out people would do it. Some already are - ANS
has CIX connectivity for its people (resellers) who are not CIX members.
Joseph Stroup
On Fri, 6 May 1994, Doug Luce wrote:
> "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
>
