Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix.
But, this would require working with your direct competition in your local geographic area.
Ain't gonna happen.
No way, No How.
Why not? We already have competing TV stations sharing an antenna site, and competing newspapers sharing a printing press and distribution mechanism. I don't see why ISPs couldn't do something similar where it's in everybody's interest. -- Walt
Creating a consortium [akin to the NAP model] of small ISP's could easily resolve this problem, if all address space allocated to each ISP was contiguous and could be aggregated to a larger prefix.
But, this would require working with your direct competition in your local geographic area.
Ain't gonna happen.
No way, No How.
Why not? We already have competing TV stations sharing an antenna site, and competing newspapers sharing a printing press and distribution mechanism. I don't see why ISPs couldn't do something similar where it's in everybody's interest.
Newspapers and TV stations are content providers, only a few ISPs are content providers. ISPs are more "packet movers" than anything else, so it comes down to who can move packets the best, not who has more appealing packets. And this boils down to technical competance. I can only see "Internet Content" providers banding together. Scott -- smace@neosoft.com - KC5NUA - Scott Mace - Network Engineer - Neosoft Inc. Any opinions expressed are mine.
But, this would require working with your direct competition in your local geographic area.
Ain't gonna happen.
No way, No How.
Why not? We already have competing TV stations sharing an antenna site, and competing newspapers sharing a printing press and distribution mechanism. I don't see why ISPs couldn't do something similar where it's in everybody's interest.
Newspapers and TV stations are content providers, only a few ISPs are content providers. ISPs are more "packet movers" than anything else, so it comes down to who can move packets the best, not who has more appealing packets. And this boils down to technical competance. I can only see "Internet Content" providers banding together.
That and the fact that ISP owners seem to have larger ego's to protect, for some reason. You can no longer claim "I have more bandwidth than you do." It's a pity, really. It prevents local traffic exchanges from being as popular as they might, as well. Dave -- Dave Siegel Sr. Network Engineer, RTD Systems & Networking (520)623-9663 Network Consultant -- Regional/National NSPs dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."
Dave Siegel wrote:
That and the fact that ISP owners seem to have larger ego's to protect, for some reason. You can no longer claim "I have more bandwidth than you do." It's a pity, really.
A year ago we suggested local T-1 connected ISPs pool a T-3. (it would have worked out to same cost for shared 10Mbps to a 45Mbps pipe as we all paid for a DS1). We got back exactly 0 Yes-responses. Dave, you were one of those zero respondents. This isn't a "why can't we all get along" topic. ISPs are being formed by inexperienced entrepeneurs who think competition is much better than cooperation (Prisoner's Dilemma.) Perhaps in a year or two, when all the struggling ailing decay-ridden ISPs are gone, and the healthy ones remain, then cooperation will be more of the de rigeur. Note: Someone told me today about an article in ??? that pointed out in 1993 there were 300 ISPs, in 1995 1500 ISPs, and that number is expected to drop to 300 by end 1997. Ehud p.s. If AT&T and MCI can team up to compete in the LEC market, I don't see why ISPs can't team up to get bandwidth, peerage, routing, etc. It's not ego's[sic], it's immaturity. -- Ehud Gavron (EG76) gavron@Hearts.ACES.COM : Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail will cost $500/message under USC 47 s 5.5.2 : : which can be found online at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/ :
p.s. If AT&T and MCI can team up to compete in the LEC market, I don't see why ISPs can't team up to get bandwidth, peerage, routing, etc. It's not ego's[sic], it's immaturity.
(scene: paul's office. paul is busily looking through his huge pile of hats, complaining that there are too many and that most don't fit well.) (finally, wearing a hat emblazoned "CIX", he rises, looks at camera, and says...) check out http://www.cix.org/ if you're looking for other ISP's to team up with.
Newspapers and TV stations are content providers, only a few ISPs are content providers. ISPs are more "packet movers" than anything else, so it comes down to who can move packets the best, not who has more appealing packets. And this boils down to technical competance. I can only see "Internet Content" providers banding together.
That and the fact that ISP owners seem to have larger ego's to protect, for some reason. You can no longer claim "I have more bandwidth than you do." It's a pity, really. It prevents local traffic exchanges from being as popular as they might, as well.
Dave
Local exchanges will play a VERY big role if national providers go with a use sensitive rate. I think the "spirit of cooperation" is present in many ISP but takes a second chair alot of times. I've seen direct competitors pool together in a few isolated cases and generally it was in an effort to drive to another market (other cities in thise case). Also as some "ISPs" departmentalize into Network providers, Content providers, etc., more cooperation will follow. In alot of the marketplaces there are literally fueds between competing ISPs (some techinical some business) and it is REALLY hard to convince bean counters why they cooperate with someone who would just as well see you go out of business. Scott -- smace@neosoft.com - KC5NUA - Scott Mace - Network Engineer - Neosoft Inc. Any opinions expressed are mine.
participants (5)
-
Dave Siegel -
Ehud Gavron -
Paul A Vixie -
Scott Mace -
Walter O. Haas