On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote: > > >Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest > >could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long > >as they had pricing and policies that were similar to member > >driven exchange points. > > Verrrry interesting that you raise that. > > IIRC, Albuquerque has NMIX which I think was setup as for-profit. > (John Brown are you still here?) Well over a decade ago now, my > recollection is fuzzy. I don't recall the reasoning in choosing > for-profit over nont-for-profit.
NMIX was a group of NM ISPs on a shared router at (last of?) the local feeders into what was once WestNet in the NSF days. It had a local NNTP server and (I believe) a couple of other services. It was useful back in the days when you could plumb some T1s to an AGS+ and make people happy. Mr. Brown's attempt at an exchange (IXNM) lasted about 8 years, and can probably be counted as an example of failure for such a model. The political side overwhelmed any technical advantage in Albuquerque. While it never became an importan IX, from the outside it looked like it was a successful bandwidth co-op with several local ISPs buying from it and benefiting from the local connectivity. Perhaps others can make a go at it? ----------- IXNM Opening e-mail --------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:45:27 -0700 From: "John M. Brown" <[email protected]> To: 'John Osmon' <[email protected]> Subject: IXNM goes live Friday 30-Jan-03 ----------- IXNM Ending e-mail --------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 02:51:33 +0000 From: John Brown <[email protected]> To: "1st-Mile-NM" <[email protected]> Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IXNM End of an Era, death due to stupid politics.
