[9152] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: an Internet buying coop?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miles R Fidelman)
Sun Dec 19 16:08:47 1993
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1993 15:46:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>
Reply-To: Miles R Fidelman <fidelman@civicnet.org>
To: com-priv@psi.com, communet@nysernet.org, nii_agenda@civicnet.org
In-Reply-To: <199312192003.MAA27190@mail.netcom.com>
Hi Folks,
Re. the following comments:
---------
>From tenney@netcom.com Sun Dec 19 15:44:21 1993
Why don't we push the CIX to add something to their member agreements that
would require their members to allow their subscribers to re-sell access or
somesuch. Of course, it would likely also have to say that doing so would
only be allowed if the subscriber also joined the CIX, but we could also
push for membership fees based on number of expected annual resales (why
should ANS pay the same $10K as XYZ Coop reselling to three users?).
>From karl@mcs.com Sun Dec 19 15:44:25 1993
Any attempt to mandate sales policies of this kind by a trade association is
likely to run into BIG anti-trust problems. As a company which is about to
join the CIX (like paperwork is being prepared now), I would be the first to
vehemently oppose any such provision. Being a party to an anti-trust lawsuit
is no fun at all.
>From stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com Sun Dec 19 15:44:29 1993
Ah, there we have it. I was wondering how long before someone argued
that these coops would be resellers that had to join the CIX. That's
of course precisely the problem I've been complaining about on com-priv
for weeks.
Why not just go all the way? CIX members become only those providers
that physically attach to the CIX; the CIX charges them enough to
support the CIX; they recover that in the price they charge their
customers. This way, what the coop pays to support the CIX is
determined by the free market - by what deal it can get from a provider.
>From: "Dick St.Peters" <stpeters@spare-parts.crd.ge.com>
The current "Thou shalt deal only with CIX members" *is* a sales policy
of precisely the type you should fear.
---------------
We should be looking beyond the CIX. If we really end up with a bunch of
NAPs all over the country, we should be asking what policies NSF should
impose on those who connect to the NAPs. My own belief is that the CIX
policies are pretty good ones, and should be the ones applied to the NAPs
-- rather than allowing anyone to connect and institute pair-wise routing
agreements with other connectors. If NSF doesn't want to get into the
regulatory game (and I believe that they don't want to, and probably
shouldn't) then the question becomes who should regulate/control NAP
interconnect polices. My own vote goes to an FCC and/or State PUCs, and I
believe we should all be working very hard to educate the players on the
issues.
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
**************************************************************************
