Re: The questions stand

[Brian Horvitz <horvitz () shore net>]

> I do so wish we could get over the "tier" fixation.
>
> If I start the Tampa Bay Internet Exchange, let's say, and I haul in
> OC-3 links from the 5 top backbones, and DS-3's to the 4 NAP's, I can
> then (very likely) a) resell bandwidth to local ISP's for quite a bit less
> than the backbones could sell them a local drop, which would b) be
> quintuply redundant in cast of feed failure, and c) unload all the
> cross provider traffic from the NAP's, and indeed, the backbone itself.

I'm not disagreeing with anything here but, the "tier" thing is a real
concern especially for the marketing weasels at the smaller companies.
The network construction is quite sound.

> This worked perfectly well with Usenet topology, until the commercial
> wonks started screwing it up.
>
> In fact, I could operate the exchange as a co-op, _owned_ by all the
> local providers.

This is the best I've heard yet.  A non-profit co-op run by any interested
local providers would be just a fantastic idea.  The reason I brought up
the whole tier issue is that if this becomes a commercial entity then it
looses its effectiveness.
 
> Except for the back bone operators, who's best interests is such a
> scheme _not_ it?
>
> (And please note here: just because I _could_ oversubscribe the uplinks
> doesn't meant I _have_ to.)

Right..see above.

   Brian