[47] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: competition [answer to the question]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kent England)
Tue Oct 30 10:03:09 1990
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 09:42:03 est
From: kwe@buitb.bu.edu (Kent England)
To: kwe@buitb.bu.edu, schoff@psi.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:35:38 -0500
> From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
>
> The problem is that you don't get to decide this in the end, the
> IRS does. Could you answer the 2nd question?
>
> Marty
> > But you are. Aren't the majority of your accounts commercial
> > and only a minority (25%?) academic.
> >
> > Marty
> >
>
Of course I can answer the second question. Here are your
answer(s):
Twenty of NEARnet's current membership of 56 are academic
institutions or collections of academic institutions from
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island. Get
your calculator and that will come out to 36%. If you want a
different but equally valid view, take the University of Maine system
and add in all of their institutions separately (7) and take the Mass
Board of Regents and add in every Mass public academic institution
separately (31) [but don't count UMass twice, since they are a direct
member of NEARnet]. Your percentage now is 60. But then we can add
a certain consortia of very small entrepreneurial institutions (10
members) and change the percentage again the other way.
Of the remaining nonacademic institutions or collections of
institutions, some are government labs (eg, Mitre), one is affiliated
with MIT (Lincoln Labs), several are other not-for-profits, some are
medical institutions, and the rest are research labs of large and
small commercial enterprises.
Marty, there are your answers. Which percentage suits your
purpose best? You are welcome to it.
Now can we talk about something relevant or interesting?
--Kent
