[10753] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Settlements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Partridge)
Tue Mar 8 01:40:12 1994
To: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, dlynch@interop.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 07 Mar 94 18:08:35 -0500.
From: Craig Partridge <craig@aland.bbn.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 94 16:40:37 -0800
> Does your model presumes that:
>
> o There is a single IXC to which each "local carrier" connects?
>
> o The "local carrier" (PSI, in your example) doesn't have a national
> backbone of their own which they might rather use?
No, it doesn't presume either. It sort of assumes that:
* IXCs will have a motivation to connect to one another simply because
what they are selling is global connectivity (and if need be, they
can be coerced to connect). But note that there only needs to be one
connection point, somewhere in the country for all a country's IXCs,
since IXCs, are by definition national in coverage. So none of the
onetime (still?) problem of the CIX forcing local carriers to rent
long-distance links just to interconnect.
* That, if well managed, the IXC(s) will usually be able to offer the local
carrier better rates than the local carrier running its own national
backbone. (If this isn't true, the local carrier will keep its national
network and ignore the IXC).
And I'd assert this is pretty close to the current Internet model. (I know
some stuff has changed since I stopped working for a service provider, but not
*that* much).
Craig
