Subject: Re: Peering
James Love (love@cptech.org)
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:33:57 -0400
Message-Id: <3575B335.21957ACF@cptech.org> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 16:33:57 -0400 From: James Love <love@cptech.org> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: Peering References: <199806032009.QAA12327@ruby.ora.com>
Andy Oram <andyo@ora.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I'll try to send some good worldcom quotes... but basically, the
divestiture is a joke. jamie
-- James Love Consumer Project on Technology P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org/ 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:26 EST