[10876] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Collet)
Sun Mar 13 11:16:57 1994
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 1994 07:15:41 -0500
From: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>,
Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
Of course, you're right in that nobody will connect to the NAPs if there are
more cost competitive solutions. I think what the NSF is trying to do is
prevent fragmentation of the Internet by facilitating and easy-to-get-to and
easy-to-use (Routing Arbiter) interconnection point. Hopefully, this makes
for a stronger and more robust Internet market for the service providers and
enhanced utility for customers through shorter paths and full connectivity.
Even if for some reason they are suboptimal but still a net gain, what's the
big deal in making 3 NAP connections? Cost will be next to nothing.
--bob
> Return-Path: <marty@psilink.com>
> Message-Id: <9403120937.AA56457@schoff230.herndon.psi.com>
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 09:37:56 +0000
> From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>
> To: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>, "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.
> com>,
> "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.net>
> Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
>
> airports were built (as a piece of the puzzle) to deal with a monopoly
> situation that the US government determined was needed for public
> safety with respect to lumbering commercial jets in a limited volume of
> airspace.
>
> Even with the monopoly situation few airports are owned and or managed
> by the Federal government, municipalities are big owners of airports.
> Aside from public safety issues and International agreements the Feds
> are not fundamentally involved in those airports.
>
> Several initiatives to have airports owned by purely commercial
> concerns have been politically controversial. The current discussion
> of turning over the air control system in the US to something other
> than the US Government is also an area of controversy.
>
> There is no requirement for a monopoly interconnect strategy because
> there is no public safety concerns. In fact my thesis is that the
> public safety concern (Bill of Rights Privacy issue) has been CAUSED by
> the NSF wiretap strategy and is about to become worse through "economic
> incentives" and legislation (ala Clipper).
>
> Your analogy does not work.
>
> Marty
>
> PS: People will join the NAP for religious/political reasons, using
> the cost/benefit criteria of below, or of your own creation the
> exercise of creating an econmoic model for connect/non-connect is left
> to the student.
> -----------
> > Message-Id: <9403120659.AA40766@Bob Collet>
> > Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 06:59:40 -0500
> > From: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
> > To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>,
> > "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>, "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.
> > net> Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> > Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
> >
> > How is a NAP different from an Airport? Network service providers
> > are the airlines. RA is the FAA. So, if the airport is important
> > enough the airlines will land. Conclusion: Sprint will connect to
> > all the NAPs. Speed, T1 or T3, will depend on whose at the NAPs.
> >
> > Bob Collet
> >
> >
> > > Return-Path: <marty@psilink.com>
> > > Message-Id: <9403111710.AA42344@schoff230.herndon.psi.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 17:10:42 +0000
> > > From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>
> > > To: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>, "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.
> > > net> Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> > > Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
> > >
> > > Dan,
> > >
> > > It is an interesting question.
> > >
> > > How can anyone answer this question without facts in a dozen areas
> > > from price to performance to security.
> > >
> > > But let's start at the baseline - If a service organization had
> > > conectivity to all the places that it needs to communicate through
> > > other means, why connect to a NAP? Seems like the cost/benefit
> > > ratio is infinity.
> > >
> > > On another baselin issue, the NSF and its contractors have
> > > wiretapped information out of the NSFNet for years, fundamentally
> > > ignoring the complaints of many organizations. I believe that many
> > > of the commercial Internet providers now get much less than 10% of
> > > their traffic from/to the NSFNet.
> > >
> > > Assuming the NAPs will not guarantee a NSF/Government no-wiretap
> > > interconnect, do we want to perpetuate the wiretapping that the NSF
> > > started long ago for another generation of Internetworking for
> > > that <10% traffic. Or is it time to take another evolutionary/
> > > revolutionary step as was taken in 1990 with commercial access?
> > >
> > > Marty
> > >
> > >
> > > > Return-Path: <dlynch@interop.com>
> > > > Message-Id: <9403061926.AA11877@polaris.interop.com>
> > > > Date: 6 Mar 1994 11:23:23 -0800
> > > > From: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
> > > > To: "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.net>
> > > > Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> > > >
> > > > Reply to: RE>>"Fed **deal** may speed
> > > > Rick, Thanks for the clarification on NAPs from th estandpoint
> > > > of your commercial view. Let me try to put words in your mouth
> > > > that would be even more clarifying for end users. Are you saying
> > > > that there is no technical reason (that is, packets would still
> > > > flow to/ from all destinations on the Internet) and no financial
> > > > reason ( that is, it does not save (or make) you money) for your
> > > > company to utilize the NAPs?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Dan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
