Mailing List Archive

At 10:46 PM 01-05-97 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
>First it was AGIS (but who cares about AGIS?). Now UUNET. Tomorrow who?

Gordon;

In my view, UUNET and PSI were the second to try to put the Big Squeeze on,
with the CIX filtering incident with the original "settlements" squeeze
that ANS tried to perpetrate on the NSFNET regionals as the historic first.
The CIX filtering idea was that the smaller ISPs should be forced to pay a
$10k fee in the hope that they might be encouraged to buy transit instead.
Sprint forced the issue by welcoming the smaller ISP market while MCI
waffled, UUNET said "No way", and PSI said "It depends". Then along comes
Net99 and the backbone market blows wide open and now everyone resells
bandwidth. Not good for the big backbones.

When UUNET says "sure we'll peer with you, but we don't need no stinkin'
contract" and when MCI and others will sign a contract but only for a year,
what do you expect to happen someday? Pretty clever about the NDA -- it
kept the lid on for over a month.

Backbones are expensive, but hard to value to the customer. Bandwidth
resale leaves too much margin for small ISPs to make money, in the view of
the backbone providers. The market can't support thirty-five separate
backbones, even were they all to be "MFS-no-money-down" instant backbones,
as I sometimes think they are. :-)

Sooner or later, the Big Squeeze will work. If not now, then next year. If
your business plan competes head-to-head with a facilities-based ISP, then
you'd better think hard about how to change it, because there just aren't
going to be that many facilities-based ISPs in future.

--Kent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Currently we peer with UUNet across Mae-West and have for over
two years. We have been trying to extend this peering to the many
other NAP's where we have DS3 connectivity for over 10 months now,
as sound network design would indicate, but these efforts have been
repeatedly rejected by UUNet. Recently, we also recieved the "from
letter" telling us our peering would be shut off in June. We have
so far declined to sign the NDA papers with UUNet regarding this.

We are seeking a solution to the the problem without entering into
a dead-end NDA that prevents us from actually doing so. I encourage
others who are in the same boat to contact us to exchange thoughts
on the matter.

Best Regards,

Adam Waters

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On Fri, May 02, 1997 at 10:27:27PM -0700, Adam Waters wrote:
>
>
> Currently we peer with UUNet across Mae-West and have for over
> two years. We have been trying to extend this peering to the many
> other NAP's where we have DS3 connectivity for over 10 months now,
> as sound network design would indicate, but these efforts have been
> repeatedly rejected by UUNet. Recently, we also recieved the "from
> letter" telling us our peering would be shut off in June. We have
> so far declined to sign the NDA papers with UUNet regarding this.
>
> We are seeking a solution to the the problem without entering into
> a dead-end NDA that prevents us from actually doing so. I encourage
> others who are in the same boat to contact us to exchange thoughts
> on the matter.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Adam Waters

I suggest considering a class legal action and/or a direct call to the FTC
asking for an investigation if you believe this behavior is anti-competitive.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What? Are you kidding? Where does it say anywhere that UUNet is required to
connect/peer with anyone? Just because you are at a MAE doesn't give you
the rught to peer. I think anyone who sues over the pulling of peering is
simply crying like a little girl. The only mistake I think UU Net (or any
for that matter) every made was to peer with smaller networks in the first
place.


>>
>> Currently we peer with UUNet across Mae-West and have for over
>> two years. We have been trying to extend this peering to the many
>> other NAP's where we have DS3 connectivity for over 10 months now,
>> as sound network design would indicate, but these efforts have been
>> repeatedly rejected by UUNet. Recently, we also recieved the "from
>> letter" telling us our peering would be shut off in June. We have
>> so far declined to sign the NDA papers with UUNet regarding this.
>>
>> We are seeking a solution to the the problem without entering into
>> a dead-end NDA that prevents us from actually doing so. I encourage
>> others who are in the same boat to contact us to exchange thoughts
>> on the matter.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Adam Waters
>
>I suggest considering a class legal action and/or a direct call to the FTC
>asking for an investigation if you believe this behavior is anti-competitive.
>
>--
>--
>Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
>http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
> | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
>Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog
lines!
>Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W
Internal
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

> What? Are you kidding? Where does it say anywhere that UUNet is required to
> connect/peer with anyone? Just because you are at a MAE doesn't give you
> the rught to peer. I think anyone who sues over the pulling of peering is
> simply crying like a little girl. The only mistake I think UU Net (or any
> for that matter) every made was to peer with smaller networks in the first
> place.

UUNet could disconnect all of them right now. Why does it not?

If UUNet leaves all of the smaller networks unhooked, it may just be that
UUNet is left in the lurch. At some point UUNet will not be seen to have
universal connectivity and at that point their bragging about being a
backbone won't matter much.

UUNet still needs the little guys -- in whole -- just as much as the little
guys need UUNet.

UUNet will have to keep away from the Genuity NAPs, won't it? Don't the
Genuity NAPs require full/complete peering?

I have a feeling that an uneasy peace will soon be called, one in which
business on the Net is as usual. Is anyone expecting an apocolypse of
sorts?

When CIX said that they were going to start charging, they started out
at $10,000 entry. Karl D. had membership for MCS, but then turned on
CIX when he didn't like the way the organization was run. The AGIS
Internet network (Net99) was formed out of the resistance to CIX's
exclusive routing announcements.

When all was said and done with the announcements and the due dates,
CIX failed to demonstrate its ability to manage such specific exclusivity.
I think that UUNet may have the same type of problem if it has to live
up to its announcements. Granted, it is easier to open up "peers" when
they pay you than it is to seperate out connections in which neither
end is a CIX member -- but UUNet can't just shut things down and then
open them up slowly -- they'd be roasted alive.

One first thinks that it is only the little guys get burned with their
customers when the little guy is seperated from a backbone operation such
as UUNet's. But the only thing is that out of the vast numbers of UUNet
customers or indirect UUNet subscribers, there will be many who notice that
a connection to the little guy is no longer possible -- and they will complain
up the chain to UUNet. Just responding to those complaints is a massive
amount of work and expense.

I think the message we should get from all of this is that even with
the premium pricing of UUNet, Sprint, MCI, etc. there is great pain
and disappointment over the ROI for backbone operators. Costs seem
to progress geometrically on linear increases in revenue.






- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>One first thinks that it is only the little guys get burned with their
>customers when the little guy is seperated from a backbone operation such
>as UUNet's. But the only thing is that out of the vast numbers of UUNet
>customers or indirect UUNet subscribers, there will be many who notice that
>a connection to the little guy is no longer possible -- and they will complain
>up the chain to UUNet. Just responding to those complaints is a massive
>amount of work and expense.

Its only a massive amount of work and expense if you care about customer
service. Remember what happened when users on PacBell Internet couldn't
reach the US Securities and Exchange Commission one morning. The provider
that cared about its customers rectified the problem, at their own expense.
The provider that caused the problem, didn't suffer any reprecussions. In
fact, they said "see it was the other guy's fault all along."

Stuff won't break all at once, it will just become more brittle. It
will break weeks and months later, long after everyone has forgotten
that it could have stayed working. I saw our first MCI hiccup a couple
of weeks after they disconnected from the CIX. A different provider
turned down a BGP session at MAE-East, and has been straightening things
out for a week. It is very difficult for a customer to isolate a problem
with the Internet, even when all the providers are cooperating. Imagine
how tough its going to be for customers to figure things out with this
going on.

Providers that care about customer service are at a distinct disadvantage
playing chicken. Providers that say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
can get away with it.

I don't think anyone is looking for a "free" ride. It would be great if
other providers compensated DRA for using DRA Net to carry their "free"
traffic. But so far, none have made me an offer.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

>One first thinks that it is only the little guys get burned with their
>customers when the little guy is seperated from a backbone operation such
>as UUNet's. But the only thing is that out of the vast numbers of UUNet
>customers or indirect UUNet subscribers, there will be many who notice that
>a connection to the little guy is no longer possible -- and they will complain
>up the chain to UUNet. Just responding to those complaints is a massive
>amount of work and expense.

Its only a massive amount of work and expense if you care about customer
service. Remember what happened when users on PacBell Internet couldn't
reach the US Securities and Exchange Commission one morning. The provider
that cared about its customers rectified the problem, at their own expense.
The provider that caused the problem, didn't suffer any reprecussions. In
fact, they said "see it was the other guy's fault all along."

Stuff won't break all at once, it will just become more brittle. It
will break weeks and months later, long after everyone has forgotten
that it could have stayed working. I saw our first MCI hiccup a couple
of weeks after they disconnected from the CIX. A different provider
turned down a BGP session at MAE-East, and has been straightening things
out for a week. It is very difficult for a customer to isolate a problem
with the Internet, even when all the providers are cooperating. Imagine
how tough its going to be for customers to figure things out with this
going on.

Providers that care about customer service are at a distinct disadvantage
playing chicken. Providers that say "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead"
can get away with it.

I don't think anyone is looking for a "free" ride. It would be great if
other providers compensated DRA for using DRA Net to carry their "free"
traffic. But so far, none have made me an offer.
--
Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO
Affiliation given for identification not representation

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -