Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (11525)	6/20/1999 12:21:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I'm just offering some offhand observations and likely causes that have accounted for similar signs of poor performance in the past. I'm suggesting that the problem may be the size of the pipes being leased by the ISP, or the manner in which they are ordering and/or administering their links. Whether they have attempted to economize on lightly populated routes, for example, by avoiding links to the NAPs, perhaps, by peering directly other ISPs? Or maybe their routers are not set up correctly, and they are mis-prioritizing or mis-appropriating resources somewhere along the line in their own routers, or the problem could even be in the distant end ISP's routers, with whom they are peering. Myriad possibilities exist. Sometimes the culprit is so blatantly obvious that it is overlooked. And sometimes it's better to burn and destroy, and start fresh. Who is maui.net?

To: ahhaha who wrote (11525)	6/20/1999 12:33:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 29970

Some additional comments on the state of Internet peering relationships which I thought you'd find interesting, from an article abstract from the "Cook Report on Internet:" cookreport.com PEERING CONTINUES TO PERPLEX NO NEW PEERING AMONG PRIVATELY INTERCONNECTED BACKBONES IN MORE THAN YEAR - ADJUDICATION OF COMPLEX ISSUES TEMPTING BUT UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE POSITIVE RESULTS FOR THE INDUSTRY pp. 6 - 13 Peering continues to be a messy situation. Undoubtedly, the big five, as early entrants to the Internet game, have advantages even over extremely well-financed upstarts such as Level 3 and Qwest. Furthermore, given the sorry state of public exchanges, the only way for new players to get adequate connectivity and performance is to either be privately peered or become customers at multiple points. We believe that the worst features of the current situation are twofold: the secrecy in which peering is shrouded by non disclosure agreements and the fact that there are no generally accepted rules. These two features can combine in insidious ways to cause newcomers to the market to fear that they are being cheated. We hope that some way to alleviate these problems can be found. As the discussion that follows shows, while the position of the big five is defensible, the murkiness of the world in which it exists creates a temptation for those who are locked out to pursue legal action. While we still sympathize with the smaller players, we are leery of legal action being able to produce any result other than moves that will lead to the regulation of the Internet. We republish a lengthy discussion from the Cybertelecom law list. Requiring that peering agreements be published is seen as one way to blunt the anti-competitive aspects of the current situation. This suggestion is made that peering arrangements are part of the terms and conditions under which backbone providers are offering TELECOMMUNICATIONS services as defined in the Communications Act. According to a list member: "they undertake to ship data of the user's choosing (packets from the user's own customers) to the places the user wants them to go (the addresses indicated on the packets) with no net change of form, content, etc. If this is true then peering arrangements are subject at least to regulation and probably to actual tariffing." After much discussion, the consensus was that peering really doesn't fit in such a Procrustean bed.