[1081] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: internet consumer reports on state-wide IP networks (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Seiden)
Wed Jul 24 17:28:02 1991
From: mis@seiden.com (Mark Seiden)
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 16:07:26 EDT
in a recent com-priv posting,
> From: asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
writes:
> To: tom@nisca.acs.ohio-state.edu
> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 91 14:18:40 EDT
> Cc: kwe2@bbn.com, emv@ox.com, com-priv@uu.psi.com
> In-Reply-To: <9107231822.AA06010@nisca.acs.ohio-state.edu>; from "tom@nisca.acs.ohio-state.edu" at Jul 23, 91 2:22 pm
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL10]
>
> > There are many places
> > in the country that the national providers don't touch and therefore
> > make connection costs higher (regardless of the standard rate set).
>
> AlterNet can provide a connection pretty much anywhere under our "56K
> to anywhere" plan. If we can get a Sprint 56K circuit to you, then you
> can join AlterNet for the cost of the local loop plus the AlterNet 56K
> service fee per month.
>
> Please contact us if you want more details,
> --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
> +1 703 876 5050
>
i find use of this term "local loop" quite interesting. i gather it
means something different for alternet than for other carriers.
in particular, i was somewhat surprised when i discovered that a site in
midtown manhattan which connected to alternet last month was forced to
purchase a "local loop" to reston virginia (!) to get a permanent 9600
bps connection to netblazer.uu.net.
unfortunately they were gullible enough to accept such a deal (they
were in a bit of a hurry). i find it hard to believe that there isn't
enough business in new york city for alternet to justify a point of
presence there. if everybody on the east coast got suckered into
a leased line to reston, i guess they'd never have to invest in
infrastructure...
meanwhile psi, which seems to have the objective of establishing POPs
in their intended markets, has had scheduled (and been slipping a
month per month, with no public announcement) their establishment of a
POP in southwest connecticut (specifically, stamford). when asked,
they say that there is some unspecified regulatory problem. (does
anyone have a reasonable explanation of what such a problem might be?
so far psi has not elaborated on the problem despite several queries.)
i could not help but notice that psi has previously scheduled POP
installations which just never happened (e.g. akron and somewhere on
the beltway in MD) -- they quietly changed their minds after
announcing they would be installing POPs, but john eldredge
(jte@psi.com) disclaims that they have any intention of decommitting
this time...
morals of the story? prospective customers should be careful about
adding up the true costs of connections (dialup or leased) *before*
placing an order with a carrier and should not believe claims that
there will be presence "soon".
--
mark seiden, mis@seiden.com, 1-(203) 329 2722 (voice), 1-(203) 322 1566 (fax)
