[9025] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Your Question about Sprint
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Galloway)
Tue Dec 14 21:59:16 1993
From: John Galloway <jrg@rahul.net>
To: com-priv@lists.psi.com
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1993 18:58:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9312150059.AA03298@spare-parts.crd.Ge.Com> from "Dick St.Peters" at Dec 14, 93 07:59:19 pm
Reply-To: jrg@galloway.sj.ca.us
>
> > From: Christopher Davis <ckd@kei.com>
>
> > 3. All members must be legally organized to provide TCP/IP or OSI public
> > data internetworking services to the public in multiple geographic areas.
> > By this clause (see cix.org:/cix/README) neither of your co-op examples
> > would need to be CIX members,
> > Even if they are in "multiple geographic areas" (which your co-ops would,
> > of course, not be) they are not providing the services *to the public*.
>
> The first mile of the road is in Warren County, but the last three are
> in Washington County. One or more of the people wanting some bandwidth
> are along the first mile, in a different county from us, so we're
> reselling bandwidth in two towns in different counties. For this we
> owe the CIX $10K/yr on top of what we pay our provider ?
What is your point? Obviously you can construct situations in which
it would not make economic sense to pay for a CIX membership. The
question is: is there an alternative for you? In the cases you
sight no one is forcing you to become a resller to the public. In
these cases you could organize as a single entity (e.g. a coop) that was
sharing a single connection from your local provider, just like any
companies private LAN/WAN which extends in many cases across state
lines, let alone into multiple LATAs.
Perhaps the CIX needs to add some detail to some of the terms in their
membership agreement, but I don't see a fundamental problem as you
seem to. If it huts to do that, stop doing that.
-jrg
