[10743] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: Settlements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Partridge)
Mon Mar 7 17:33:33 1994
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: dlynch@interop.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 07 Mar 94 06:14:10 -0800.
From: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 94 07:29:15 -0800
> What about the following idea: What is missing here is a true "IXC" for IP
> traffic. A "carrier" whose only purpose was to take all "local" traffic and
> forward it to the appropriate "local" destination? Forgetting who might own
> such an entity and forgetting the perhaps idiotic "Star" topology that that
> business model might look like, isn't that the place where settlements would
> need to happen?
Dan:
Let me play devil's advocate back.
Suppose the IXC simply billed each connected provider a flat amount
per month based on the size of the provider's pipe (or pipes) into the
long-haul network. So, for instance, if PSI had T1 connections to the IXC
in LA and DC, PSI would pay for two T1 connections.
The IXC could make guarantees about loss rates and service outages, so
you'd know what you were buying.
The result:
* a nice simple, predictable revenue stream for the IXC
* a simple bill for the local carriers
* possibly lower costs (less accounting work at both ends)
What's wrong with this picture that we have to inject settlements into it?
Craig
