Mailing List Archive: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them withcharging under non-disclosure?

I'm picturing a kind of "UUNET Disconnects from Internet" type of headline.
This NDA thing has got me shut down. John Sidgemore won't talk to me.
Ok, let's go public. What do you guys know? As usual in Boardwatch, we'll
all pretend I had a dream last night and made it all up. I don't know what
I'm talking about, yata yata yata.... e-mail privately. I hallucinated it
as always...

Jack Rickard

Jack Rickard 8500 West Bowles Ave, Ste 210
Editor/Publisher Littleton, CO 80123
Boardwatch Magazine (303)973-6038 voice
http://www.boardwatch.com (303)973-3731 fax

----------
> From: Matthew E. Pearson <mpearson@games-online.com>
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them
withcharging under non-disclosure?
> Date: Friday, May 02, 1997 9:54 PM
>
> At 10:46 PM 5/1/97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
> >I have just had a phone call from a particpant in the news conference of
> >the well. What UUNET is doing to many of its peers, including the Well,
is
> >now clear. According to my caller, Dave Hughes, it has served notice to
> >many if not most of its peers that, in late May and early June, it will
> >either terminate their peering session or that the peers will have to
> >start paying for the privilege. How much will be charged and under what
> >conditions is unknown. Why? Because the unfortunate peers either have
to
> >**sign non disclosure agreements before** they even sit down with UUNET
or
> >simply be cut off.
>
> Now how pathetic is this? UUNET one of the original pioneers of the
> Commercial Internet, one of the Flagships of open systems, standards, and
> connectivity now wants to extort money from other networks for peering?
As
> if they don't make enough money. Gee wouldn't it really suck for all of
> UUNet's customers and MSN etc if a company like ConXion no longer had
UUNET
> peering? Gee they couldn't download any Microsoft products anymore! True,
> UUNET is big, true they have many good sites and on-line resources for
> customers. But, they are not so good that they deserve some mega-high
price
> for the honor of accessing their customers. After all, why do you need a
> confidentiality agreement if your prices are reasonable? Put a gag-order
on
> people from complaining about pricing...
>
> This is also practically extortion. "Yes, we are peers, we have already
> decided that our customers and yours would benefit, but YOU and YOUR
> customers should pay to access ours...." Maybe everyone should pull out
of
> peering with UUNET and tell them they need to pay US to peer. Just my
$0.02
>
> I am all for a commercial Internet, but this takes it WAY to far for my
> tastes. At least true telecom carriers are regulated in what they can
> charge for interconnects by the FCC or another governmental body in their
> own country. Sheesh..
>
> Send all flames to: dev@null.com
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Matthew E. Pearson
> Vice President of Development
> Games-Online Inc.
> http://www.games-online.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just a note about the cost of doing business in what I call this new
internet. We are building both, the long hauls between cities and also
purchasing the bandwidth from the 3 major player, MCI, SPRINT, and UUNET.
We have 19 cities total, with DS3s from each of the 3 above in 7 of the 19
cities. All cities are tied together via long hauls. This was not the
cheap way to do this, but it is the most effective. Major reason, when you
peer, you can not manage the network connection. We get to manage our
connections in the seven location with the major three. We also can get
some nice routing done because we are buying access to their networks. I
really think the best way to get this done is to buy transiting bandwidth
from whom ever you want. I think the peering should be done in a managed
way. The maes and naps are not really managed connections, they are best
as best can to get through them. So if you every want and kind of QOS for
your network, buy the bandwidth not a unmanaged/miss managed connection.
To make the internet as stable as the voice systems then these
interconnection (bandwidth) agreements must be put in place and managed
with two adult parties, not several hundred meg a bit connections going
into a switch trying to come out a DS3 straw. So buy the bandwidth and
manage it.

Gary Zimmerman
V.P. of Network Engineering
Savvis Communications Corp.
email: garyz@savvis.com
http://www.savvis.com
Office: 314.719.2423
Address: 7777 Bonhomme Suite 1000
St. Louis, MO 63105

----------
> From: Matthew E. Pearson <mpearson@games-online.com>
> To: Stephen Balbach <stephen@clark.net>; Gordon Cook <cook@netaxs.com>
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: UUNET Pulling Peering Agreements & replacing them
withcharging under non-disclosure?
> Date: Saturday, May 03, 1997 5:28 AM
>
> At 06:43 AM 5/2/97 -0400, Stephen Balbach wrote:
>
> >Buying connectivity from an ISP who peers with UUNET, or buying direct
> >from UUNET, is a lot cheaper then building a national DS-3/OC-3 backbone
> >and trying to be default free - this is not about UUNET cuting throats,
> >it's about large and small ISP's examining thier business model.
>
> Explain to me how it is cheaper to pay UUNET for a full DS3 from
> Boston-Washington, Wasington to Chicago, Washington to San Jose, Chicago
to
> San Jose, Washington to NYC at $60,000 each not including telco or
transit.
> Than it is to pay a telco alone for just the lines? I'd love to see how
the
> numbers work out on that!
>
> If your plan is to sell connectivity nationwide or semi-nationwide it is
> absurdly more expensive to use UUNET than to do it yourself.
>
> Yes, if you are a local ISP and never intend to sell anything outside of
> your area, it -MIGHT- possibly be cheaper. However, at $60,000 per DS3
> circuit not including telco/transit as opposed to even a $25,000
WorldComm
> circuit -END TO END- I still don't see how the math works, unless you are
a
> UUNET reseller which wouldn't explain why you are building a network
yourself.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Matthew E. Pearson
> Vice President of Development
> Games-Online Inc.
> http://www.games-online.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -