[70] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
competition [answer to the question]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bob@MorningStar.Com)
Wed Oct 31 15:45:49 1990
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:54:58 EST
From: bob@MorningStar.Com
To: com-priv@psi.com
Some random musings...
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 17:43:20 est
From: kwe@buitb.bu.edu (Kent England)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 14:20:41 -0500
From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
From the "Commercialization of the Internet" presentation at
Interop90 you asked the panel "when would the commercial
networks interconnect" and the response from Rick and I was
"when our customers ask for it, which they haven't".
...competition can get in the way of rich interconnectivity when we
have unregulated services.
These same problems arose with the train system (what gauge track?),
the electric power grid (AC or DC?), the telephone system, etc. They
all wound up heavily regulated. Do we really want each state's public
utilities commission involved?
why don't you remove your restrictions or go commercial so that
your customers and mine can be happy.
If I did that, you might refuse to exchange traffic with me after
you had gained sufficient market share in New England...
Will any customers really sit still while their services are reduced?
By merely establishing a link, the expectation is created that it (or
the services it provides) will exist in perpetuity. Do you think that
Compu$erve could now pull their electronic mail plug from the
Internet? Or that Connect could disconnect from DASnet? They could
keep running as an isolated island, but at the expense of disgruntled
users. Internetworking customers have much higher expectations.
...But you do see the problems I anticipate when similar-sized
competitive commercial networks refuse to interoperate because they
do not perceive some competitive advantage accruing. Same thing
happened with X.25 services... I advocate rich connectivity over
competitive advantage...
Connectivity is good. Period. End of statement. I doubt you'll find
anyone here disputing that.
But unless there's competitive advantage to be had, it won't happen.
Every project must justify itself. In a mostly-capitalist environment
like the USA, that justification happens on the beancounters' balance
sheets. There will be rich connectivity IFF there is a competitive
advantage for each participant.
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 19:05:20 -0800
From: "Erik E. Fair" (Your Friendly Postmaster) <fair@apple.com>
The very same forces have also kept the various commercial E-mail
services from connecting to each other (well, that, and gross
ignorance too). That they do today is a tribute to the sheer size
of the Internet, and their desire to offer connectivity to our
community as a competitive advantage, which, incidentally, connects
them to each other through us.
Soon, everyone will be using 8'4.75" track and will do away with the
crossloading terminals because they will perceive the advantage.
Companies like DASnet already provide connectivity between commercial
services without involving the Internet at all. Some links (e.g.
Compu$erve to ATTmail) don't exist because they would need to cross
the Internet and are explicitly blocked by implementations of the
acceptable-use policies. Perhaps someday Compu$erve will get a UUCP
link to ATTmail and "acceptable use" will be a non-problem.
I bet that PSInet and AlterNet haven't connected to each other yet
because they haven't figured out how to charge each other for it.
I would strongly suspect that this is the only holdup. If they can
turn a profit by connecting then they're being unresponsible to their
stockholders if they don't, for whatever reason. If all it takes is
Rick, Marty, and Kent talking nicely together, then I'll buy the beer :-)
Is that an FCC regulator I see on the horizon? Or is it Judge
Greene?
Or perhaps a lynch mob of crazed Usenetters who just caught wind of
ANS? (Is "crazed Usenetter" redundant?)
