Subject: Re: Peering
Andy Oram (andyo@ora.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:09:40 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:09:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199806032009.QAA12327@ruby.ora.com> From: Andy Oram <andyo@ora.com> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: Peering
I think a bit more background is worth offering -- both on
peering and on 706. I was waiting for somebody else to do it
because I'm no routing heavy, but I'll post what I know as
briefly as I can.
First, since this is my posting, I can think of no better
start than one of my articles (which you can see at
http://www.oreilly.com/~andyo/ar/mci_worldcom.html in its
entirety. I've moved to a somewhat more anti-merger position
since writing it, but I think the verdict is still unclear.)
Peering is defined below (though I don't use the term).
....
The whole notion of an Internet is predicated on the
ability of different networks to exchange data. When
the Internet was young, most traffic went over
central wires maintained by a grant from the
National Science Foundation. You can visualize the
system as hundreds of small end-users attaching to
larger branches, which then attach to still larger
ones, all finally connected by one huge set of
cables like the spine of a vertebrate -- which is
why the major cables are still called the
"backbone."
As private companies took over more of the backbone,
they continued to let smaller companies exchange
traffic over these cables and servers for free. This
arrangement meant that large providers were
essentially paying for equipment used by smaller
ones. But the expenditure was worthwhile, because it
meant more users could get on the Internet and
ultimately everybody got more business.
Well, if you're a Neanderthal and antelope are
plentiful, you won't mind fellow humans hunting the
same hills, and may even give them a hand catching
new game once in a while. But when the hills start
to fill up with fellow Neanderthals, and Cro-Magnon
man shows up, you get a good deal more territorial.
I don't want to take this analogy too far, because I
do not think by any means that the old Internet
providers will die out, even when facing competition
by cable TV and telephone companies. My point is
simply that a maturing Internet industry makes UUNET
feel the need to compete more with the small
providers, as well as charge more for access to its
servers and lines.
Whatever the motivation, UUNET has recently required
small companies to pay more than ones that can offer
facilities of equal capacity. Many people are afraid
that this move signals a tug on the strings by
WorldCom to force small providers out of business.
....
Now, what's this 706 business? If you are without fear, you
can view http://www.technologylaw.com/techlaw/act.html and
find that Section 706 of the telecom act is Advanced
Telecommunications Incentives. It's a part of the law that
calls (in slightly oversimplified terms) for Internet access
for all Americans.
Several months ago Bell Atlantic and Ameritech (maybe some
other Bells tool) asked the FCC to let them enter the market
of providing long-distance data service. They disingenuously
cited this part of the law as justification -- in other
words, "Let us enter the market and we'll make sure
everybody has Internet access." The reason they can't enter
is that there's practically no competition in their core
market of local phone service, so both Congress and the FCC
wants to keep them from cross-subsidies and other unfair
practices.
Andy
Andy Oram
<andyo@ora.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:25 EST