[11939] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
may 94 COOK Report on CIX & VBNS Protest Issues published today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Tue Apr 26 01:07:16 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 1994 12:26:49 PDT
To: com-priv@psi.com
The May 1994 COOK Report on Internet -> NREN is published today. (We shall be in
Russia between May 9 and 31 and will next publish about June 10.)
A Special Issue on the Commercial Internet Exchange
COMMERCIAL INTERNET EXCHANGE - INTERVIEW WITH THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR pp. 1- 6.
In a rare interview with Bill Washburn, CIX Excutive Director we discuss issues
affecting the CIX that emerged from a debate on the com-priv list that we
touched off in mid-March. In the interview Washburn positioned the CIX at a mid
point in the policy spectrum between the NAPs which could have strong policy
restrictions and MAE East which has none.
He noted that CIX has two requirements - all members must peer with each other
at the CIX router and must accept all traffic from each other without
settlements. What many outsiders do not realize is that CIX membership
currently buys connection to and unrestricted traffic with 44 commercial
internet service providers worldwide -- something that would be difficult and
expensive to negotiate via one on one arrangements.
Wasburn acknowledged an on-going dispute with ANS about routing. ANS apparently
has some preferences that the CIX Board so far has not agreed with. On the issue
of reselling Washburn brought up a new point that we have not seen discussed in
public. ***A service provider with only one POP need not be considered a
reseller and therefore need not join the CIX in order to get CIX routing from
its provider.***
In discussing whether the annual $10,000 CIX membership fee should be seen as a
barrier to entry in the marketplace, Washburn said there is a feeling that CIX
membership should stand for a degree or level of a basic quality of service that
must be maintained -- one that would embrace customer support and service.
Washburn explained in part the issue of some entities getting CIX routing
through their providers was an unavoidable fallout of providers having to be
free to make billateral arrangements with other providers who may or may not be
CIX members. Despite the fact that relationships between some regional members
and some purely commercial members had been strained, he indicated that he felt
a convergence between the interests of the CIX and the regionals would likely
take place. Why? Because in order to survive, the regionals will increasingly
have to operate with the same balance sheet concerns as the commercial nets.
Finally he commented on our concern that the CIX had not been doing a good job
of telling its story to the rest of the network, by saying that he simply didn't
have the time to answer questions from com-priv. However, he held out some hope
that it may figure out how to take questions in a public network forum.
CIX: A SUMMARY FROM THE COM - PRIV DEBATE. PP 7-13.
>From serveral hundred kilobytes of com-priv discussion we have culled about 5000
words of arguments pro and anti CIX and its policy. We Include sidebars with
the CIX membership list, an explanation of the ANS routing issue and of the
tools necessary to analyze routing to and from the CIX Inter-exchange point.
AT&T AND CIX MEMBERSHIP, PP. 14, 24
AT&T has initiated nationwide commercial TCP/IP frame relay service. Yet it so
far has not joined CIX. We ask why?
CONYERS GOV'T OPERATIONS. COMMITTEE REBUKES NSF DIRECTOR FOR VBNS OUTCOME, PP.
15
On April 12 Congressman John Conyers citing "numerous allegations questioning
the propriety of the NSF's efforts to acquire telecommunications services," gave
Director Neal Lane until April 27 to supply answers to the Committe on the
process used in choosing MCI as the winner of NSF 93-52. Conyers stated that he
was particularly troubled by NSF's use of a cooperative agreement rather than a
contract. Sources on the Hill to us that it could be as long as two months
before a decision about a full fledged investigation is made. We publish
Conyer's April 12 Letter to Neal Lane in full.
NEW QUESTIONS ABOUT NSF POLICY & COMMERCIAL USE OF VBNS, P.16.
After down playing its importance, the NSF announces it will subsidize academic
connections to the vBNS. An informant suggests that if the vBNS carries but a
single OC-3 connection commercial resale may be inappropriate. Need for NSF to
specify a quality of service metric is pointed out.
NSF REFUSED TO ANSWER PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS QUESTIONS ON COMMERCIAL USE IN JUNE OF
93 BIASING THE COMPETITION THEN UNDERWAY, P. 18.
COOK Report under FOIA has obtained complete questions submitted to NSF in May
1993. Examination reveals that Bellcore, Ameritech, Advantis, COOK Network
Consultants and NCAR asked about Commercial use. While no one at NSF answred
these questions it seems that NSF went ahead with its own definition in mind and
is now ready to fund MCI's development of a commercial service. Amendment 2 to
NSF 93-52 said it answered all ** substantive ** questions. DNCRI Director
Wolff again on 11/30/93 said NSF answered all **substantive** questions. We
wonder NSF did not consider commercial use questions to be **substantive** --
especially in the context of the perceived favoritism and stretching of the
rules in Wolff's earlier grant of commercial use to ANS (comprised of the
current winners MCI and IBM).
NSF also reveals that it has no data on MCI cost sharing proposals, no legal
support for Wolff's 12/29/93 declaration that he had statutory authority to
grant commercial use,and no audit data on how the current awardee is carrying
out its commercial use privilege.
FOIA RESPONSES INDICATE ABSENCE OF POLICY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OSTP, HPCC NCO
AND NSF, P. 19.
PL 102-194 calls for an HPCC Program to be established by the President. Such a
program is to exert management and oversight responsibilities as well as carry
out a coordination function. The Clinton Administration has established a
Coordination Office but seems to have left congressionally mandated oversight
and management responsibility to the agencies. Responses to our FOIAs indicate
**no discussions of policy** between OSTP, the Coordination Office at NLM and
NSF!! In absence of acknowledged policy guidance, we call on Conyers to
ascertain where the legislative intent of PL 102-194 is being carried out.
SPRINT'S APRIL 8
SUBMSSION TO GAO, PP. 21, 23.
Sprint initiates a new ground of protest over the failure of the NSF to answer
the questions asked by prospective bidders on commercial use of the vBNS. It
charges that NSF biased the competition in favor of MCI, a partner in the
current cooperative agreement and beneficiary of NSF's current grant of
commercial use.
Sprint also develops an new jurisdictional argument for GAO. It calls for GAO to
hold a hearing to take oral testimony. Finally it asks that GAO force NSF to
turn over an extensive collection of documents pertaining to cost sharing and
commercial use. We include extensive excerpts from the filing. GAO was to have
ruled by April 15th. Sprint regards the fact that they have not ruled as we go
to press (April 24) as a favorable sign.
_________________________________________________________________________
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
cook@path.net (609) 882-2572
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 educational & non prof., $85
individ.
_________________________________________________________________________
