[RINA] RINA Presentation for Friday 15th Oct

John Day jeanjour at comcast.net
Thu Oct 14 17:07:08 EDT 2010

At 13:44 -0400 2010/10/14, akin at bu.edu wrote:
>Thanks for the comments. The authors actually made some
>assumptions to arrive at a tractable model.

Yes, the point is that they made flawed assumptions.  At the very 
least, the models used for network and service provider should be 

But to be more realistic and perhaps avoid intractability problems as 
well consider what real companies are doing.  First of all, if they 
are doing them, someone has thought about long and hard and while I 
have seen many flawed business plans, most of these companies have 
been in business a long time.

1)  The only businesses I know which are even close to being purely 
network providers, charge for usage, e.g. cell phones.

2)  There is strong evidence that those businesses who charge a flat 
rate treat the "network provider" part of their business as a loss 
leader, as a cost of doing business.  Comcast and Verizon are making 
their money on content, not on the Internet.  Even with the move to 
more downloads and on-demand rather tv channels, the business is 
content, not the network.

3)  As I say in my class, from the beginning the network provider 
recognized that the 5 layer architecture relegated them to at best a 
commodity business with very low margins.  IP has made it worse, 
where all they could do was order bigger routers and more fiber.

4)  As I have argued elsewhere, the RINA model changes that in a 
couple of directions.

5)  If I were you, I would construct the business models to be 
realistic.  Then figure out what kind of math you need or where you 
can make simplifying assumptions.  Don't make the mistake of queuing 
theory of fitting the problem to the math.  And'or, determine what 
questions you want to ask.  For example, do you want to try to show 
that a there is or is not a viable model for a pure network provider? 
Or what the conditions would have to be for it to be the case?

6) BTW, there has been a mildly amusing discussion on the 
internet-history list this week on "owning" IP addresses.  With the 
basic conclusion, (lead by me) that you can't own them.  Or at best 
only providers can own them.  There is no market for them.

This should get tomorrow's discussion off to a good start.

Take care,

>One of the possibilities I'm considering is to see if we
>can still arrive at a tractable economic model for
>a two-level clean-slate RINA network under realistic
>assumptions ?
>I appreciate more insights and comments from
>everyone. thank you.
>Quoting John Day <jeanjour at comcast.net>:
>>I am imagining things or are the assumptions in this paper are
>>completely backwards?
>>He assumes network providers have non-overlapping territories and
>>that users have no choice.  This was true of phone companies, but I
>>always thought a distinguishing characteristic of the Internet was
>>that they WERE overlapping.  I can get Internet service from either
>>comcast or verizon.
>>He assumes that music downloads etc are subsitutable (his term)  that
>>they all have the same stuff to download, when in fact, Amazon,
>>iTunes, etc compete to sign exclusive deals with distributors of
>>content (NBC, Sony, Walt Disney, etc.) to offer the service.
>>Am I missing something here?
>>Take care,
>>RINA mailing list
>>RINA at cs.bu.edu
>Joseph Akinwumi,
>Graduate Student,
>Computer Science Department,
>Boston University,
>MA 02215, USA

More information about the RINA mailing list