Provider credibility - does it matter? was Re: Inter-provider relations

Sat Oct 26 15:44:52 UTC 1996

> From: azeem at dial.pipex.com (Azeem Azhar)
> Absolutely correct: can I direct you to two of our articles on the subject
> (and a useful graphic):
> http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/ld4401.html
> http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf0774.html
> http://www.economist.com/issue/19-10-96/sf1.gif
>
I took a quick look at the articles, and see that you have confused
rather a lot of technical details.  For example, "intranets" are not
"new" ways to bypass the Internet, and there is no such thing as a
"private Internet".  Intranets are just marketing-speak for the
_existing_ local networks that the Internet joined together.  Most local
networks are already "private"; private networks have been with us for
decades, and the "big I" Internet connects them to make them accessible
outside their locality.

Although you have identified some of the problems with currently priced
phone systems, you were incorrect to state that the largest cost to the
PSTN is the switches and wires.  It is well documented here in the
States that that the largest expense of any PSTN is the cost of
administration, billing, and call management.  It is clear that the
primary edge enjoyed by the current Internet pricing models is the
reduction in administrative overhead.

It is inaccurate to say that "[Internet] users pay only for their cars
and its fuel".  The cost of the "street" is fixed, and well known to the
providers, and is already included in the monthly cost of the "fuel".
Similar to how we already fund roads here in the States (fuel tax)!

And I wouldn't place too much credibility on the Varian/Mackie-Mason
papers.  As I have been watching them for some years, they published the
same papers with minor modifications in multiple publications (a general
no-no in the academic community for padding their Curriculum Vitae), and
have had in the past models that bore little resemblance to Internet
reality.  As Mackie-Mason once admitted to me, (paraphrased off the top
of my head) these concepts have been over-simplified for the consumption
of economists.

> That's true: in a conversation with Phil Lawlor (CEO of AGIS), he told me
> that one of his customers ISPs, who was also peering with AGIS at the
> Mae-E, indulged in "bandwidth stealing" by receiving their Usenet news feed
> across Mae-E rather than as an AGIS customer across the few T-1s they had
> to AGIS.
>
It seems you do not understand the concept of "peering", and little
understand routing mechanisms.  If the ISP is peering with AGIS at
MAE-East, then AGIS has agreed to accept traffic _sent_ from the ISP at
MAE-East for the rest of its network, at those locations included in
AGIS BGP advertisements.  Conversely, unless the AGIS routing sends to
that ISP at MAE-East, then it would be impossible for the ISP to
_receive_ their Usenet feed from AGIS.

Therefore, AGIS itself _must_ have directed the flow at the ISP via
MAE-East.  The Internet routing is based on best-effort forwarding, not
receiving.

WSimpson at UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson at MorningStar.com
    Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2