[8540] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS and the CIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Mon Nov 22 11:56:51 1993
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 12:04:35 +0000
From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
To: Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>, com-priv@psi.com
I think there is a fundamental difference between a CIX with a
"a very positive set of connection rules" and the FCC.
The CIX is a voluntary organization with rules that it creates on its own,
I equate this to the way GAAP accounting standards are created. The FCC
sets involuntary regulations from a much more politicized bureaucracy.
But maybe you are not suggesting the disbanding of the CIX.
However, I'm glad that you have understand the nuances of the CIX vs NAP
philosophies and while your (FCC) proposal is not new, it is another way
(but a road that is well traveled with all the attendant established "givens")
In a world free of "givens" many have voiced the fact that the CIX and NAP
philosophies should be REVERSED.
The US government's position within the NAP should be that you have to swap
no matter what. Why the government wouldn't want free flow and an even
playing field that are explicit and implicit in the CIX agreements are simply
puzzling to most.
Another set of people (dominated by a telco mentality) see the CIX as
taking an absurd position based on economics and a dozen other issues that
this poor dirt farmer will never understand. They believe that the CIX should
do what the NAP wants to do.
While there are some huge differences between the two camps in leadership,
and non-public agendas (at least on the US Government side), I think the
cautionery issue is
The Internet is Unique.
I have to go home and pull a quote from a book (written by Peters on
International Economics) I'm reading to capture it with good prose.
It is possible that the Internet is like laying down the US Constitution,
something that gets to be done well only once, that has a life of its own,
and where you have two groups of people trying to codify it
(a) the oligarchy with short term goals
(b) an establishment with long term goals
Peters basically feels that the US Government is an (a) and there are
probably no more (b)'s. B's like a Washington and a Jefferson just don't
happen that much.
So if your willing to sign up to "The Internet is Unique" then take care in
turning it over to an institution like the FCC, and I am NOT suggesting that
it be turned over to the CIX (as currently constituted) or some ANS inspired
CITA.
Marty
> Return-Path: <fidelman@world.std.com>
> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 17:00:00 -0500 (EST)
> From: Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>
> Subject: Re: ANS and the CIX
> To: com-priv@psi.com
> In-Reply-To: <1844.753744308@apple.com>
> Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9311211700.A23120-0100000@world.std.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> A modest proposal (with brickbat shield turned on):
>
> All of the recent discussion and events re. ANS and the CIX point out
> the dangers of placing key crossroads of the world's information
> infrastructure in hands of a research funding agency and private
> players.
>
> While the CIX has, to my mind, a very positive set of connection
> rules - to which ANS has finally signed up, once the NAP contracts are
> awarded the situation will change drastically. We will go from the CIX
> policy of anyone who interconnects must exchange packets on a
> settlement-free basis to a policy of anyone can connect but the terms
> of packet exchange will be up to individual agreements between network
> operators. Recent events have shown the dangers of such a policy.
>
> Since NSF (rightly) states that it is not in the regulatory business,
> it seems that placing the NAPs under the control of NSF and NAP
> awardees creates a potentially net-destroying situation.
>
> So - perhaps its time to think about placing the NAPs under the
> jurisdiction of an agency that DOES see itself as a regulatory agency,
> and cares about such issues about guaranteed interconnection, rules
> that establish a level playing field, common carriage, and the like --
> namely the FCC. This would have a secondary effect of getting the FCC
> invested in the Internet, and thinking about such issues as how to
> shape local loop regulation to be supportive of Internet access for
> smaller users. [note: we would, of course, have to spend a lot of time
> educating the FCC if we want them to do things reasonably correctly]
>
> Ok folks, I'm waiting for those flames, brickbats, and pieces of rotten
> fruit to come my way :) (though, I gave a talk at CNI yesterday to
> about
> 60 people, and when I expressesed these views I was positively shocked
> that only one person in the room reacted negatively)
>
> Miles
>
>
>
> *************************************************************************
> * Miles R. Fidelman mfidelman@civicnet.org
> Executive Director 91 Baldwin St. Charlestown MA 02129
> The Center for Civic Networking 617-241-9205 fax: 617-241-5064
>
> Check out our gopher server:
> CCN - The Center for Civic Networking
> on the list of all gopher servers in the world.
>
> Information Infrastructure: Cyberspace is Civic Space
> Public Spaces for the 21st Century
> *************************************************************************
> *
>
>
