[9419] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: a "keeper of the Internet"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Jan 4 23:32:02 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: lear@yeager.corp.sgi.com
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 22:30:33 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <moe5edq@sgi.sgi.com> from "Eliot Lear" at Jan 5, 94 01:47:37 am
>
> Currently that requires the use of *one* IXC. Yakov pointed out that
> this is a political impossibility; yet it is a technical requirement
> for proper IP routing.
>
> Now where does that leave us?
Huh?
I can think of at least two carriers, Sprint and WilTel, that are more than
willing to pull (or share) connections to CIX and FIX locations. I bet AT&T
and MCI will quote those lines too.
Hell, I just <bought> one of those from Sprint - I <know> they're willing
to do this. They explicitly allow use of their network as a transit to
the CIX and FIX (assuming you are a CIX member, and comply with the FIX
AUP, of course, which is how it should be).
This is a <good deal> for them, as the price of that circuit is about what
I could buy a straight T1 leased line for, and not all of that traffic goes
to one place (read: their actual utilization factors are <way> in favor of
allowing me to do this for the money spent, and still represent a good
deal for MCSNet.) This is a win-win situation for everyone. Sprint has
a "right thinking" mindset on this stuff; Telco-like carrier pricing yet
doing things that will (1) make them money, and (2) cost customers less
than the alternatives. Good decisions all around I'd say. Everyone wins.
The Internet does <not> have to evolve into a "settlement-based" system, in
any way, shape or form. We could end up with that, but it is NOT guaranteed
that we must. I say we don't want it that way.
Those who want a settlement-based system need only look at the Cellular
phone network in the US, with $1.00/minute roaming charges and $.50/minute
local access, all dictated by the fact that a darn large part of that ends
up going to wireline carriers so those mobile phones can talk to anything
other than another mobile! Or, for example, what I consider to be the
exhorbitant connection charges foisted off on local phone users in the form
of "supplemental line charges" and the long-distance rates -- again, largely
a subsidy in the form of a settlement to the local telcos.
Why? Because the local telcos <can get away with it>, since they have
monopoly power in a given local calling area. To that I say "barf".
If you STILL want a settlement-based system when you get done looking at
this closely, I suggest you see a doctor. Preferrably one with good drugs.
The only companies who want a settlement based system are those who have
something significant to gain from it, namely an entrenchment of an
already-existing position that threatened, pre-CIX, to become a de-facto
monopoly.
I'll pay my taxes to the CIX, thank you very much. At least I have a
vote for my membership fee there. Paying a monopoly gets me nothing except
crappy service and exhorbitant costs. I have two monopolies I have to deal
with in this town already, the local phone and cable companies, and I think
they both stink to high hell.
For a good example of the way monopolies work check this out:
24 POTS lines from IBT: $ 360 a month
1 T1 from IBT, point-to-point: $1,000 a month
Now, why is this? 24 POTS lines take the same bandwidth as a T1 in the
telco equipment.... <and> require a channel bank full of cards and 22 more
pairs of copper to get to me to boot!
The wonder of monopolies.
--
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.
