[9884] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: bill text draft 2: Telecommunications Competition Act (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Tue Jan 25 16:47:12 1994
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman)
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 15:28:37 -0600 (CST)
Cc: jeffgs@netcom.com, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.759529124.ittai@shemesh.ans.net> from "Ittai Hershman" at Jan 25, 94 03:18:44 pm
> My point exactly the major reason for the commercial growth in the
> Internet is due to competition in the long distance market, because it is
> deregulated and interconnected ala CIX.
>
> I am afraid this is not at all clear. The numbers, in fact,
> demonstrate that the predominant growth in the Internet, at least as
> seen from within the United States, is growth in the NSFNET Backbone
> Service and not the CIX.
>
> Attached is a table identifying the affiliation of network numbers
> (i.e. destination routes) in the ANSNet router tables over a three
> month period.
>
> DATE CIX ANS NSFNET
> Only CO+RE AUP
>
> 8-Oct-93 925 738 15429
> 15-Oct-93 1139 814 15586
> 22-Oct-93 1132 845 15863
> 29-Oct-93 1116 898 16082
> 5-Nov-93 1160 939 16440
> 12-Nov-93 1147 988 16950
> 19-Nov-93 1152 1022 17206
> 26-Nov-93 1098 1141 17383
> 3-Dec-93 1086 1177 17764
> 10-Dec-93 1146 1228 18135
> 17-Dec-93 1060 1335 18540
> 24-Dec-93 1046 1366 18924
> 7-Jan-94 1032 1389 19457
> 14-Jan-94 1019 1462 19757
>
> It is worth pointing out that since the CIX Association installed a
> filtering gateway to regulate traffic to and from ANSNet, there has
> been a significant increase in the conversion of customer networks
> from commercial service providers migrating from AUP-free CIX-only
> routing to NSFNET (AUP compliant) status.
Yep. The reason for this is that ANS was providing service to the CO+RE
backbone, <AND THE AUP BACKBONE>, without AUP agreements (ie: NACRs), right?
Or was the truth that ANS was providing CIX routing to R&E <AND> CO+RE
sites <and their attached customers> without (1) ANS being a CIX member,
and (2) without your attached CO+RE customers who were reselling
connectivity being members?
Neither of those two arrangements are things which the CIX <has> to
provide, nor, in my opinion, <should> provide. See below for why --
association services should be for association members -- period.
> This demonstrates that the biggest danger to the future of the
> commercial Internet is that some service providers appear willing to
> sacrifice global commercial connectivity because they are unwilling to
> conduct business with each other bilaterally and/or prefer to use a
> taxpayer-paid government service rather than engage in business.
Like ANS, for instance? Tell us, Ittai, how much money did ANS take in
last year from CO+RE customers? Could you fund that nice T3 backbone you
have without the government money? Be honest; we can always ask for the
990s if and when they're released.
It appears to me that the real issue here is that business customers are
conducting business, and have agreed in the main that the CIX (ie: NO
SETTLEMENT) policy is the way they want to go. ANS, on the other hand,
wants to "conduct business", as you put it -- ie: extract a pound of flesh
from those commercial providers so they can access the <TAXPAYER FUNDED>
backbone you have there.
In my more charitable moments I would call this dirtball politics as usual.
I don't see why there is a problem with access being granted to taxpayer
funded government services <ON EQUAL TERMS TO ALL>. This is what the
commercial companies are doing right now. This means that you, Ittai,
can't sell that same access, but in my opinion <you should not be able to>,
since it is the US taxpayer who is funding that access!
> If we, the commercial Internet service providers cannot get our act
> together, then that is surely the road to regulation of the Internet.
> It is my hope that the CIX Association will rise to the challenge and
> begin acting as the neutral trade association it was incorporated to
> be, which should provide an environment which promotes bilateral
> business relationships among members and promotes the mutual interests
> of its members (and their customers) in Washington D.C.
>
> -Ittai
Ittai, perhaps you can explain to com-priv <just how> the CIX is not being
a neutral trade association today. If you mean that it provides services
to members only, well, yes, you're right. Isn't that what a trade association
does? Certainly that has been my experience with all the other associations
I have worked with in the past -- I have a long history of installing and
maintaining computer equipment in exactly that market. Trade associations
have <NEVER>, and I repeat -- NEVER -- served those in the same market who
choose NOT to be members. In fact, associations tend to regard their
services as highly valuable to members, which is the reason that the
members join and continue to participate, is it not?
I have yet to see you postulate, much less demonstrate, how the CIX has
failed to (1) be neutral, that is, operating on the same basis to all
comers, and (2) working to foster interconnectivity and bilateral business
arrangements.
That you don't happen to LIKE the basis on which the CIX operates, in a
neutral fashion, is not properly a subject for a call to "regulatory
action". If you don't happen to like the present trade association, set
up your own and try to steal members from the CIX. I await your formal
proposal for your new association to be tendered to MCSNet. Certainly,
if it makes sense, I'm interested, as I suspect all the other members are.
That's how the free market works -- not by invoking government at every
turn. Actually, I find it rather humorous that ANS, the company which has
benefitted from government intervention at every term (in fact, was FORMED
as a direct result of a government largesse grant) would raise a call for
regulation. Is your message an official pronouncement and position of ANS?
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - Full Internet Connectivity (shell,
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | PPP, SLIP and more) in Chicago and 'burbs.
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | Email "info@mcs.com". MCSNet is a CIX member.
