I don't post here much but since i have been asked a direct question.... i will give an answer and a factoid or two and ask a question or two of my own
>Perhaps we need NANOG-OldFarts mailing list? yes -says one old fart how about a list with a charter of discussing industry changes that might find some islands of stability in the on going industry collapse? one that examines some of the fundamental ways in which the economics of the industry is changing? >T3 lines were technically >available and priced by 1990; nobody had the money or customer demand >to justify getting them. They were being used by telcos to upgrade >their POTS services, for the internet the T-3 backbone upgrade was the highly relevant part. ANS was formed as a public private partnership to give IBM an opportunity for a test bed (via the NSFNet backbone) to develop hardware that could route IP packets at 45 megs. The upgrade was announced in early 1991 but it was a LONG time (late 92 early 93 before ANS was moving packets at that speed. (See brock meeks expose of merits claims on the T3 NsfNet backbone that ran in the july 7 1992 issue of communications daily.) > >Are you talking about Net99 here? > >I can't even remember what year Net99 kicked off... >Must have been what, 1994? I was chatting with >Joe Stroup by cellphone from my inlaws place >during their pre-launch nationwide tour, and the >inlaws moved in there in 1994. Historical footnote - I was the person who introduced joe Stroup to karl Denninger.... I think in the summer of 1993.... maybe it was spring 94. > >Yes... Cook report 3.07 summary, Sept/Oct 94, >seems to confirm that timing. yes stroup and denninger announced their plans at or around the time of the CIX meeting in september >Announced late 94, >rolled out early 95. [Side note: Gordon, for historical >purposes, would it be unreasonable if we asked you to >make the full reports freely available if they're >older than say 5 years? 3 years? Or are you >still making money off the archaic gathering dust >ones ... 8-) ] Since YOU ASKED. When Creative Commons goes live in the fall I believe that pretty much everything you have just asked about will be available there under a public domain but no commercial use license. > >1995 is not going back nearly far enough. > >I'm talking about pre-CIX (remember that?). CIX was announced at my Feb 14 1991 OTA workshop.... by susan estrada and bill schraeder...rick adams was supposed to be there but was sick..... al weis was there...cix was a move against ANS >Pre-NAPs. Pre-any-telcos-routing-IP. > >Man, 1992-4 were busy years, though. > > >-george william herbert >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Finally I'd like to ask a question in return. I am trying to look at what will grow up on the ashes of the current industry collapse. We are beginning to see gigabit ethernet over municipally owned dark fiber networks. Fiber to the home is beginning to appear in a few isolated areas. World Wide Packets has a business model predicated on that. As more build outs continue in places like quebec, and grant county washington and provo utah, ashland oregon, stockholm and other places around the globe, you have a potential new business opportunity for folk to use the Internet for the delivery of bandwidth intensive content and services to these municipally owned networks. As bandwidth prices plunge this model LOOKs attractive until it runs into the reality of the cost of tier one transit. That cost, i suspect, renders it of doubtful viability. With regard to this issue however Paul Vixie's comments on peering have been especially interesting. Are there folk with adequate routes and connectivity that would undertake to form a network that might be independent of the current internet core back bone of what (112,000 routes?) on top of which sit the half dozen or so Tier one players that peer primarily with each other and demand transit $$$ from everyone else? Web and email stay on the legacy backbone...new services migrate to a backbone with a cost structure unencumbered by the tier one oligopolists? Now i realize there may be plenty of issues that render this suggestion absurd. But i sense from the recent peering discussion here and from other conversations i have had that there is a fair amount of discontent with the current tier one peering oligopoly and that some folk are exploring ideas for evolution given current market conditions. Since this does not mesh well with the operational charter of NANOG, i think we likely need to take any discussion elsewhere. Anyone who has ideas, means and interests to discuss these issues please mail me off list. Yes this does fit in with other things that I am researching and writing about. see http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml There is plenty to lament about what has happened to all of us. However, I think that it is useful to look ahead at how we may eventually climb out this morass. IP packets and phones will not go away. Most of the companies currently operating in this space will. PS. Anyone interested in trekking in Nepal in October please let me know off list. eg http://cookreport.com/everest.shtml -- ======================================================== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Summary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Here Comes Asset Based Telecom A 120 page - Aug Sept issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.05-6.shtml ========================================================
