Say bye-bye to the concept of peering, huh? -- Jim ---------- From: Kevin Houle [SMTP:kevin@netins.net] Sent: Monday, November 10, 1997 6:43 AM Heard on the radio this morning that MCI accepted Worldcom's latest bid of ~$36 billion. MCI's website confirms. http://www.mci.com/aboutus/company/news/wcom/index.shtml Kevin
On Mon, Nov 10, 1997 at 10:12:53AM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Say bye-bye to the concept of peering, huh?
I look at it more as "now the Justice Department has single large target."
Yes, with nice, large, concentric circles painted on the appropriate part of the anatomy :-) Frankly, this could be a *good* thing for the industry. Among other things large organizations have a habit and history of being unable to perceive and act on market-based changes quickly enough to capitalize on them. They tend to act like 900lb Gorillas instead, which is great if you're into slow, plodding things, and not so good if you aren't fast enough to get stepped on. But eventually, stepping on people draws the fire of people on the DOJ side of the fence. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex modem support is now available Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| 56kbps DIGITAL ISDN DOV on analog lines! Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
stepped on. But eventually, stepping on people draws the fire of people on the DOJ side of the fence.
Not unless those that are stepped on squawk early, often and loudly. So in case some of you with an opinion on this subject don't know who to express it to here are some contacts at the DOJ. Scott Sacks Asst. Chief Computer & Finance Section 202-307-6132 His Staffer Kent Brown 202-307-6146 Fax 202-616-8544 202-616-5980 Anti-Trust Division Joel Kline 202-514-2410 Richard Irvine 202-307-6153 richard.irvine@usdoj.gov Doug Melamed 202-514-2401
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
Frankly, this could be a *good* thing for the industry. Among other things large organizations have a habit and history of being unable to perceive and act on market-based changes quickly enough to capitalize on them.
They tend to act like 900lb Gorillas instead, which is great if you're into slow, plodding things, and not so good if you aren't fast enough to get stepped on. But eventually, stepping on people draws the fire of people on the DOJ side of the fence.
I agree, I think this is a good thing for many NSPs. It is going to be a HUGE job to combine UUNET, ANS, and Internet MCI. They have huge hardware differences. ANS with the new BAY BCN hardware that they spent a large time developing, MCI with their large Stratacom network, and UUNet with their new Fore network. They all connect customers in a different way, it will take some time to bring all of that together. There will be major outages and problems associated with this merger. It will be a big change for other backbone providers to come in a take some of their customers base. It also will be easier to watch 1 big gorilla then 3 smaller ones. -Nathan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Nathan Stratton wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Karl Denninger wrote:
Frankly, this could be a *good* thing for the industry. Among other things large organizations have a habit and history of being unable to perceive and act on market-based changes quickly enough to capitalize on them.
They tend to act like 900lb Gorillas instead, which is great if you're into slow, plodding things, and not so good if you aren't fast enough to get stepped on. But eventually, stepping on people draws the fire of people on the DOJ side of the fence.
I agree, I think this is a good thing for many NSPs. It is going to be a HUGE job to combine UUNET, ANS, and Internet MCI. They have huge hardware differences. ANS with the new BAY BCN hardware that they spent a large time developing, MCI with their large Stratacom network, and UUNet with their new Fore network. They all connect customers in a different way, it will take some time to bring all of that together. There will be major outages and problems associated with this merger. It will be a big change for other backbone providers to come in a take some of their customers base. It also will be easier to watch 1 big gorilla then 3 smaller ones.
-Nathan
This may not be good IMO.. If these 2 (or 3) of the larger transport providers consolidate their networks completely, what about the loss of multiple paths and greater potential for outages without redundancy? Instead of going via MCI's backbone or via UUNet's (or whoever) they are all then one and the same. I realize that combining doesn't mean eliminating one of them, but if they are managed by a single entity... ...The potential for an enormous outage would be much greater. All of these spoken of providers carry a decent amount of Internet traffic (not going to make a guess, since we just had that thread about how "accurate" statistics are..) - - Josh Richards / jrichard@fix.net / Finger for PGP key - - - Systems Administrator / FIX Net / http://www.fix.net - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://www.c2.org/~bryce/Niche.html 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQCVAwUBNGd3lmm9zE6XY0w5AQEJwgP+ObpqN9KOL3LNbmk/djVrvZzb3Y7/O5NE 4GqcEilXcpyVK5QdtNnG+Q4i+Y6uRZcq1J77tUqzmxCIILoeATWlIUQkp8DwwpSW nskwIL9htQosxyNIvBGItchstPpbbCQabV4YpLNuFKzENL0KNvh4bwtFHX24A6r8 qM+rz1k56AA= =pbab -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Josh Richards wrote:
If these 2 (or 3) of the larger transport providers consolidate their networks completely, what about the loss of multiple paths and greater potential for outages without redundancy? Instead of going via MCI's backbone or via UUNet's (or whoever) they are all then one and the same. I realize that combining doesn't mean eliminating one of them, but if they are managed by a single entity...
...The potential for an enormous outage would be much greater. All of these spoken of providers carry a decent amount of Internet traffic (not going to make a guess, since we just had that thread about how "accurate" statistics are..)
YES, that is my point. I think the potential for outages is much greater, I also think that in the process of merging them together there will be major outages and problems. That is why I think other backbone providers will be able to pull customers from Worldcom. It is possible that internetMCI, ANS, and UUNet all would be operated as separate units, but I don't think so. The cost savings of one network is very large, and Worldcom will want that savings. This will benefit other backbone providers, because they will be able to acquire ANS, UUNet, and internetMCI customers when Worldcom runs into the merging problems. -Nathan
===== Nathan Stratton previously wrote: ====
internetMCI, ANS, and UUNet all would be operated as separate units, but I don't think so. The cost savings of one network is very large, and
At the traffic level the above three are running, the savings may not be that much. Plus, instead of two links, one to MCI and one to UUNET, now the customer needs just one (MAYBE bigger) connection to this new provider. This is potentially a big loss in revenue. BTW, Gridnet is old Worldcom network, and is never merged with UUNET. Jun
With this merger, approximately 80% of the Internet will now be controlled by Wcom or it's companys.. wondering when an anti-trust suit will be filed.. Eric On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jun (John) Wu wrote:
===== Nathan Stratton previously wrote: ====
internetMCI, ANS, and UUNet all would be operated as separate units, but I don't think so. The cost savings of one network is very large, and
At the traffic level the above three are running, the savings may not be that much. Plus, instead of two links, one to MCI and one to UUNET, now the customer needs just one (MAYBE bigger) connection to this new provider. This is potentially a big loss in revenue.
BTW, Gridnet is old Worldcom network, and is never merged with UUNET.
Jun
_______________________________________________________ Eric D. Madison - Senior Network Engineer - ACSI - Advanced Data Services - ATM/IP Backbone Group 24 Hour NMC/NOC (800)291-7889 Email: noc@acsi.net
On Nov 10, "Eric D. Madison" <madison@acsi.net> wrote:
With this merger, approximately 80% of the Internet will now be controlled by Wcom or it's companys.. wondering when an anti-trust suit will be filed..
80% by which metric? ********************************************************* J.D. Falk voice: +1-650-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-650-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." *********************************************************
With this merger, approximately 80% of the Internet will now be controlled by Wcom or it's companys.. wondering when an anti-trust suit will be filed..
Eric
Anti trust? You gotta be kidding. Its not quite that level just yet. Afterall, there is still AT&T, Sprint, BBN/GTE, AGIS, DIGEX, and many others. Not to mention those outside the "big name list". Its not even close to anti trust. If the business practices become anti-competitive, perhaps. But for the deal itself, I think anti-trust is overstating things. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Operations Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but also take in consideration that Worldcomm has obatained more Fiber companies that Internet providers. It looks like an even count but consider that MCI has their own fiber. MFS was for fiber, Wiltel for fiber, and so on. I'd say they have quite a large chunck there. At 04:57 PM 11/10/97 -0700, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
With this merger, approximately 80% of the Internet will now be controlled by Wcom or it's companys.. wondering when an anti-trust suit will be filed..
Eric
Anti trust? You gotta be kidding. Its not quite that level just yet. Afterall, there is still AT&T, Sprint, BBN/GTE, AGIS, DIGEX, and many others. Not to mention those outside the "big name list". Its not even close to anti trust. If the business practices become anti-competitive, perhaps. But for the deal itself, I think anti-trust is overstating things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Operations Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jun (John) Wu wrote:
At the traffic level the above three are running, the savings may not be that much. Plus, instead of two links, one to MCI and one to UUNET, now the customer needs just one (MAYBE bigger) connection to this new provider. This is potentially a big loss in revenue.
Large customer who have a connection into say MCI and UUNet will just get a connection into Worldcom and some other backbone provider. So yes I think it will be a loss of revenue, but I think the customers will move the other connection.
BTW, Gridnet is old Worldcom network, and is never merged with UUNET.
Heheheh, ya there are big reasons for this. -Nathan
Hmmm.. I wonder how long before British Telecom makes a bid to buy Sprint (if at all)??? Snowdog
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, Jun (John) Wu wrote:
At the traffic level the above three are running, the savings may not be that much. Plus, instead of two links, one to MCI and one to UUNET, now the customer needs just one (MAYBE bigger) connection to this new provider. This is potentially a big loss in revenue.
Large customer who have a connection into say MCI and UUNet will just get a connection into Worldcom and some other backbone provider. So yes I think it will be a loss of revenue, but I think the customers will move the other connection.
BTW, Gridnet is old Worldcom network, and is never merged with UUNET.
Heheheh, ya there are big reasons for this.
-Nathan
At 03:42 PM 10-11-97 -0500, Nathan Stratton wrote:
... It also will be easier to watch 1 big gorilla then 3 smaller ones.
What tune are you guys whistling in the dark? Theme from Jaws? --Kent
Haven't we skipped over sharks and gorillas to the Borg? Or does Bill have the rights to that? -- Howard
participants (14)
-
David Holub -
Eric D. Madison -
Howard C. Berkowitz -
J.D. Falk -
Jim Browning -
Josh Richards -
Jun Wu -
Karl Denninger -
Kent W. England -
Mark E Larson -
Nathan Stratton -
Paul A Vixie -
Snowdog -
Wayne Bouchard