[1889] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Commercial Use Scenario Continued
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jordan Becker)
Mon Jan 6 13:56:55 1992
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 92 13:53:08 EST
From: Jordan Becker <becker@ans.net>
To: cook@tmn.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
> <<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 03-JAN-92 0:40
> cook@tmn
> On Dec 26 I said > Again what is unanswered in the Communications Week
> Dec 23rd article is when the mid-level gets to sign the gateway or
> cooperative agreement. The claim is made that all they are asked to sign
> is a connectivity agreement which apparently places them under no
> obligation except to receive commercial traffic from ANS' customers.
Correction: there is no obligation other than to "exchange" traffic
bi-directionally with ANSNET reachable networks that have declared themselves
as commercial.
> On Jan 2, Jordan Becker replied: Not quite. When a peer network signs
> the connectivity agreement, they agree to support the exchange of traffic
> bidirectionally between R&E classified networks hosted by the peer
> network, and commercial networks which are reachable via ANS. Networks
> are classified by the acceptable use policy that they choose to conform to.
>
> Jordan, I thought that someone had said somewhere in the traffic on this
> list in the last 3 weeks that the connectivity agreement could be signed
> by the mid-level at no obligation to the mid-level except to receive the
> commercial packets. Apparently this was a mistaken assumption.
The part that is mistaken is that the "packets are commercial". Packets are
not commercial or non-commercial, they are simply packets. Any traffic
exchange between two networks that use the ANSNET as a transit network may be
bi-directional. The traffic exchange is treated separately for *EACH*
midlevel according to the classification (CO or RE) of the customer subscriber
network hosted by the midlevel. In other words, a midlevel that hosts only RE
classified networks will *NEVER* have commercial use assessed by ANS
regardless of whom it communicates with.
> It sounds like
> you are saying that if I am a mid-level - say for example that I am
> Suranet and I sign your connectivity agreement, then I am agreeing that I
> have some institutions that are attached which wish to receive commercial
> transmissions from ANS.
Correction: the transmissions are not classified as commercial or R&E. By
signing the connectivity agreement you are agreeing that you have some R&E
classified sites that wish to exchange traffic bi-directionally with ANS sites
which are classified as commercial. Nothing is assumed about the nature of
the traffic.
> You say that networks are classified by
> the acceptable use policy they choose to conform to. Does it follow that
> if I sign a connectivity agreement with ANS, I am agreeing to classify at
> least a PART of the institutions attached to my network as commercial and
> pay com bit surcharges on their traffic?
No, the connectivity agreement does not require that you classify any
institution attached to your network as commercial. If there are no CO
attachments, there are no commercial COMBIT fees, and you pay no surcharges.
> On might conclude that signing a connectivity agreement meant accepting
> AND sending commercial traffic, therefore if I were SURANET and signed a
> connectivity agreement, I would have traversed the commercial boundary and
> find myself with no choice but also to sign EITHER the gateway or
> cooperative agreement?
This is incorrect since "tranmissions" are *NOT* classified as CO or RE. The
gateway or cooperative agreements only apply if you are planning on
classifying your subscriber sites as commercial.
> However, again lets test the understanding with an example. If I am
> Suranet and I want my attached institutions to be able to deal with Dialog
> (thanks steve cisler) on a commercial basis, I must name every attached
> institution that I am assigning the right to communicate commercially with
> dialog and then pay com bit surcharges on the % of traffic that they send
> to dialog?
This is in-correct since no commercial traffic surcharges apply in this
example. Marvin Sirbu addressed this example quite well in his posting.
> Jordan also said: Even if ANS was willing to put the 'extra dollars' in
> the infrastructure pool on behalf of the commercially classified networks
> that can not pay, this would still not give us the right to transport this
> traffic into midlevels that can not support it for legal or other reasons.
> This is why the connectivity agreement is desired and, midlevel consent
> is required as a minimum.
>
> I will close by asking Jordan what he means by a "network that cannot
> support it for LEGAL or OTHER reasons." I guess by legal is meant: if I
> want commercial bits coming nto to my R&E institution I can have them
> unless I pay extra for them? What would be the "OTHER?"
We are speaking here about midlevels or other networks that wish to classify
their subscriber institutions as commercial. By "legal or other reasons" I
meant that some network service providers (midlevels or other) receive
government subsidies (provincial, state, federal) that limit the kinds of
activities they can support with those funds to be of a non-commercial nature.
These subsidies may come in the form or donations, grants, or special tariffs.
Therefore ANS can *NOT* presume that traffic exchanges are allowed between
commercially classified subscriber sites (ANS or other) and all direct ANS
attached networks (midlevels or other) without the explicit consent of each of
those ANS direct attached networks.
Jordan
