[8607] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Al Weis to Steve Wolff Memo of 1/15/91 in context of CIX vs ANS Dispute
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu Nov 25 23:49:35 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 22:48:41 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9311251918.aa18652@pandora.sf.ca.us> from "Gordon Cook" at Nov 25, 93 07:18:00 pm
>
> Some readers have been accusing the CIX and actions of UUNET and PSI of
> breaking the internet." In understanding just who was out to break WHOM I
> think it would be helpful to turn to the historical documented record and take
> a look at what Al Weis, CEO of ANS was telling Steve Wolf that *his* (Weis and
> ANS's role would be.) What follows is a single section from my 35,000 word
> history of the privatization of NSFnet from early 1990 to December 31 of last
> year - published in the COOK Report on Internet -> NREN vol 1, number 10 & 11.
> (The model of measured traffic with settlements payable to ANS that the CIX
> was formed in reaction against is quite visible here.)
(Lots about ANS trying to take away customers deleted)
Uh, I hate to throw rain on anyone's parade here, but isn't that what
free competition is all about?
Is that not what PSI is trying to do with their "Mile High" deal? Is that
not what Alternet tries to do? Is that not what MCSNet tries to do to other
companies in Chicago which provide dial-up accounts (like "Interaccess", one
of our competitors)?
Is there something <wrong> with being a capitalist in this marketplace?
If the point is that ANS profiteered off the NSF solicitation, well, ok,
make your point (you already have). But if the point is that there is
something "evil" about capitalism, then heh, let's just all fold our tents
and go home right now. After all, what's the point of running a business if
you don't intend to make a profit on it?
I see nothing wrong with ANS trying to kill Alternet and PSI. I see nothing
wrong with PSI trying to kill ANS and Alternet. I see nothing wrong with
Alternet trying to kill PSI and ANS. <AS LONG AS EVERYONE IS COMPETING
FAIRLY> this is what captialism is all about, and to cry about it is simply
insane -- or a thinly-veiled cry for socialism in the networking arena.
I happen to think that socializing the net would be (and was initially) a
<huge> mistake. I also happen to <like> the idea of free and open
competition -- even blood-thirsty competition -- among the national
carriers. That has to be good for the local providers like myself and
the end-users over time.
If anything, the CIX could end up being a mechanism for a horizontal
restraint of trade - a clearly illegal thing. In its present form this
is not the case -- but given the structure of the organization is it clear
that this will remain the case? No, it is not. Consortiums all too often
throughout history have ended up at least trying to do this kind of thing
(the OPEC cabal, etc).
I see <lots> of things wrong with a company joining the CIX, pledging
"we talk to everyone" in doing so, and then deliberately blocking traffic
to or from one or more members (or not promptly fixing mistakes in their
configuration which have this effect). I've heard unsubstantiated rumors
that some carriers are doing this right now -- of course, without someone
willing to put their name on the claim I have to take it with a grain of
salt. However, to add suspicion to the mix, the CIX agreement in its
present form has no enforcement teeth in the event member(s) do this.
Why not?
I see <lots> of things wrong with a company selling someone a connection and
then, six months later, adding a few clauses to the contract <WHICH WEREN'T
THERE WHEN THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED> -- and saying "well, either agree to
this now or we cut you off."
I see <lots> of things wrong with a company misrepresenting, either by
commission or omission, what they're really providing (or able to provide)
to customers (cf. a recent .sig-ad from a Chicago-area outfit claiming "T3
access available" when all they have to their building from ANS is a T1
line.) During uncharitable days I call that kind of misrepresentation
fraud; other times its just sleazy marketing-speak.
I don't see any evidence in your cite (or from anyone else) that ANS has
done any of <these> things to customers (or would-be customers) - with the
possible exception of the Dialog fiasco.
Some of the players in this game have done one or more of the above. If
you want to throw bricks, start there. That should be quite a bit of fun
to read.
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
