[8489] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Puzzled thoughts re ANS goals for CIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dick St.Peters)
Sat Nov 20 16:46:16 1993
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 16:39:58 EST
From: stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters)
To: com-priv@psi.com
Reply-To: <stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com>
> From: John Curran <jcurran@nic.near.net>
> John,
>
> > I actually feel that there are several organizations that are aware of
> > what is going on, and are capable of providing a neutral description.
>
> I have to admit I think you did a good job of being ANS-CIX neutral in
> what you covered, but I'd still say you left out a lot: the whole AUP
> squabble, differences of opinion about government subsidization, CITA
> vs. CIX perspectives, levelness of the playing field, etc. ...
>
> Also,
>
> > ANS CO+RE has decided that its previous position (of not joining the CIX)
> > was not longer worth pursuing, for reasons as yet not stated. The net
> > result of ANS CO+RE joining will be a single commercial Internet, rather
> > than the two distinct clouds that we had previously.
>
> I'm not so sure we can yet say there's just one cloud. My bias as an
> end user of networking is that the "commercial internet" includes all
> our customers, including the universities.
>
> >Careful. The CIX may not be able to exchange traffic with the _NSFNET_
> > unless the NSFNET joins the CIX. To do otherwise would give
> > the NSFNET a benefit which the CIX is charging its members for.
>
> My view of the NFSNET is that it's a customer of ANS, a logical entity
> riding atop that one big commercial Internet cloud. If I form a business
> providing a service to a collection of sites, each of which buys its own
> Internet connection, does that make me a network that has to join the
> CIX ? Suppose GE Medical wanted to call its remote diagnosis service
> ServiceNet for marketing reasons ... would the CIX penalize us for
> creating hundreds of customers for CIX members because we have the
> magic letters "net" in the name ? Suppose we lump the service into
> the cost of the equipment, so *we* buy the connection wherever it goes,
> and we contract with one vendor to provide all our connections. Do we
> have to join the CIX ? Does it make a difference whether we contract
> with ANS or AlterNet or NEARNet ? What's the difference between us
> contracting for our service network and NSF contracting for its ?
>
> Suppose we contract for our ServiceNet with vendor A, and some customers
> have connections from vendor B. They no longer need the connection from
> B. Does that make us a competitor of B, or are we just passing through
> competition from A ? Suppose our customer already has a connection from
> A. Presumably we get a bulk rate from A, and this customer no longer
> needs an independent connection from A. Are we now a reseller of A in
> competition with A ?
>
> These questions are *not* just hypothetical. I know of - and in some
> cases am involved in - ventures being formed now that will need to know
> the answers. Some of the answers will affect whether some ventures are
> undertaken ... affect how fast the commercial net grows.
>
> Anybody who think ANS joining the CIX is the end of the problems is
> suffering a serious delusion. That is little more than a cease fire
> and exchange of prisoners on one front. There needs to be a peace
> treaty, one that spells out clearly who is just a networking
> "customer", who is a customer become networking "vendor", and when this
> is a matter for negotiation between customer and vendor.
>
> [My apologies to the net for failing to sign my last posting. My
> deliver and include-signature buttons are side-by-side.]
>
> --
> Dick St.Peters
> GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com
>
>
