May 5, 1997
Who's charging whom?
By Bob O'Donnell
That's the question many Internet service providers (ISPs) are asking in light of
recent moves by Internet heavyweights UUNet and Sprint to change the way they handle
midsize ISP traffic on their Internet backbones. (See Sprint, UUNet end free backbone ride for
midsize ISPs.)
Until now, UUNet and Sprint have carried midsized ISP traffic for free in a peering
arrangement -- carrying the smaller firms' traffic at little or no cost through a
relationship with CIX. In addition, UUNet apparently extended similar agreements to
smaller ISPs on an individual basis. The common thread was -- like other aspects of the
'net -- resources were shared at zero additional cost.
That's changing. In separate moves, UUNet and Sprint have decided to determine for
themselves just what is a peer. Both companies last week decided to terminate their
peering arrangement with CIX; this follows UUNet's memo to a dozen smaller ISPs, informing
them that previously free access would be come with a bill starting in June.
The 'net's lack of a centralized authority has, in many ways, encouraged nontraditional
relationships and allowed the Internet to become the phenomenal force it is. But that same
lack of central authority becomes painfully obvious when these critical-yet-unregulated
arrangements change.
Yet who's to say whether Sprint and UUNet's actions are fair or just? While I agree
that those companies investing in the Internet infrastructure need some sort of financial
reward, if I were one of the smaller ISPs affected by UUNet's policy change, I would call
it a fairly dramatic turn of events. Some of the affected companies are even considering
legal action.
Many have predicted a shakeout in the ISP industry, of course, and this may simply be a
step in that long, painful process. However, I think most industry analysts expected
competitive pricing pressures to eventually force consolidations among numerous levels of
ISPs, as opposed to a wholesale restructuring of previously free Internet access.
If Sprint and UUNet do indeed offer midsize ISPs fee-based access to their backbones,
those ISPs are going to have to radically change their business models. The smaller ISPs
will have to pass their new costs onto their customers, who in turn, may decide to take
their business elsewhere. In fact, if the practice catches on, we'll all end up paying
higher rates for access.
I don't think the issue ends there, though. As the 'net moves away from its grassroots,
community-oriented environment into a much more starkly commercial venture, many things
are changing and many relationships are being redefined. In this instance, at least two of
the Internet's main backbone providers are recognizing that they have a potential goldmine
in the strategic positions that they hold. Others will undoubtedly follow suit.
Tapping that goldmine, though, strikes me as a pretty big task. Sprint and UUNet will
have to establish billing relationships with the firms that were previously peers --
tracking actual usage, network access, and so on. And where does that leave an ISP that
doesn't have such an agreement? Could customers of one ISP find themselves unable to
access Web sites hosted by another? That may be a melodramatic prediction, but its not
impossible.
Ultimately, it seems the only way the 'net can mature into a vibrant commercial entity
is to develop some kind of standardized or de facto method for compensating the network
operators who make up the Internet, whether they sit at the 'net's backbone, provide the
"last mile" connection to individual users, or like most ISPs, sit somewhere in
between. Once some type of compensation, or toll, for carrying network traffic is
determined or falls into place, then we won't need to worry about who's paying whom.
©
Copyright 1997, by InfoWorld Publishing Corp., a
subsidiary of IDG Communications, Inc. Reprinted from InfoWorld,
155 Bovet Road, San Mateo, CA 94402. Further reproduction is prohibited.
