[8545] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Puzzled thoughts re ANS goals for CIX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Williams)
Mon Nov 22 12:36:04 1993
From: sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams)
To: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 12:35:24 -0500 (EST)
Cc: stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9311221713.AA11677@rodan.UU.NET> from "Rick Adams" at Nov 22, 93 12:13:44 pm
>
> The original model for the CIX requires all network providers to join
> even if they are not directly connected.
In general, I don't have a problem with this. I do, however, when it
comes to local providers. To foster growth and efficiency of the net,
it would be desirable if local providers were exempt or had a sliding
scale or something until they were large enough.
In other words, if what is basically a BBS wants to start offering
slip accounts or metro-nets, etc., they shouldn't be liable for large
infrastructure/admin support charges until their size/traffic is at a
certain level. The advantages of a local provider have been touched
upon before here (local caching, management, guidance to make best use
of WAN traffic) as have the problems (fairness to uplevel provider,
metered vs. flat usage, etc.).
I, personally, am involved with trying to bootstrap rural areas (small
towns, schools, businesses) into a local gateway (Local Internet
Gateway that is, LIG) with no restrictions. That gives it the best
chance of growing into a hub with a good financial foundation.
The 'plunk' model, where you go to a large city and ante up $100,000+
for hardware, staff, offices, advertisement, and committed monthly
overhead/network charges will only work for the 100 or 200 largest
cities (US as an example). Having regionals drop local modems is
better, but still is only going to cover large metro areas.
In OH, for instance, Oarnet has 4-6 local pops at (dialup slip) $4/hr.
(or approx. $350 flat rate). I estimate that there are about 60-100
towns (in OH) with more than 10,000 people that could support a small
gateway and either a satellite downlink/slip-on-demand link (to start
with), leased foreign line (extra $250/mo), or a Sprintlink 56K
(mature).
Of course, most regionals don't limit (now) bbs usage as long as it
doesn't involve pass-thru/routed slip. And Oarnet, for instance, says
that you can route within an 'organization', which could be used as a
contractual hole for local access. (Company, yes. Club, ?, ...)
> This applies to Sprint and the 4 or 5 networks they provide transit
> for (all of whom have joined) and it applies to AlterNet and the 4 or 5
> networks that they provide transit for (and whom have joined) and it
> applies to ALL members equally.
>
> Simple equality and consistancy demands the same of ANS CO+RE.
>
> Of course if ANS CO+RE can provide documentation that the regionals are
> actually just business units of ANS, then they would not have to join
> separately.
sdw
--
Stephen D. Williams Local Internet Gateway Co.; SDW Systems 513 496-5223APager
LIG dev./sales Internet: sdw@lig.net CIS 76244.210@compuserve.com
OO R&D Source Dist. By Horse: 2464 Rosina Dr., Miamisburg, OH 45342-6430
GNU Support ICBM: 39 34N 85 15W I love it when a plan comes together
