[9221] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The Buffalo Free-Net / NYSERNet / PSI problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Williams)
Wed Dec 22 18:16:55 1993
From: sdw@meaddata.com (Stephen Williams)
To: fidelman@civicnet.org (Miles R Fidelman)
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1993 13:35:56 -0500 (EST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.87.9312181714.A14111-0100000@world.std.com> from "Miles R Fidelman" at Dec 18, 93 05:36:14 pm
>
> Re. the incremental cost vs. lost revenue arguement:
>
> Its worth noting that the Internet exists precisely because the telcos,
> by law, MUST allow resale of leased facilities. If regional networks,
> for example, had to pay the telcos for each user of a leased line (and
> maybe every packet to boot), then the Internet as we know it would not
> exist. This also extends to, say, the World: Barry, how would you like
> to pay for your Alternet access lines by the user or by the packet? :)
>
> The telcos have noticed this lost revenue of late -- witness their
> attempts to get into the business of charging per packet on ISDN packet
> services, and the attempt by Michigan Bell to pull dark fiber off the
> market. Luckily for all of us, Internet providers and operators of large
> corporate private networks share an interest in keeping leased facilities
> on the market.
Exactly. From my point of view, I want to have the most efficient
(price, use of resources, funding for support, etc.) access for all
users. If one my regional providers allows me to resell bandwidth in
some form, then I am only competing for support, compute server,
storage, etc. costs. Since I'm buying the bandwidth from them, they
are still making that income. If the most of my customers are the
type that would never make use of a raw pipe, the provider is not
losing anything if they don't offer more. If I upgrade my pipe to
support the number of users, my provider benefits.
If a provider insists on selling directly to users only, then they are
most likely less efficient than a local gateway. This is especially
true if they run a separate leased line into the local area for each
customer.
For many areas, the most efficient model is one leased line running to
a gateway/router that all local people share. The leased line can
grow as large as needed (and be paralellized), but only one is
fundamentally needed. Of course large cities can support several such
models in the same area, but anything less than 100,000 people
probably could not.
Since that type of gateway will only require one feed of news, and
potentially ftp archives, gopher menus, etc., it does place a very
diminished incremental burden on the network provider.
There are various other reasons this could be true: value added
features, better advertising or innovative pricing structures, cheaper
support, etc.
I'm not against the provider asking for more for reselling, but it
should be on par with the reduction in overhead compared with another
direct feed.
> **************************************************************************
> 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
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
