[1209] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Network World "The Vision of a national research net needs rethin
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Mandelbaum)
Fri Aug 23 13:01:24 1991
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com, John S. Quarterman <jsq@tic.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 91 13:00:06 -0400
From: Richard Mandelbaum <rma@tsar.cc.rochester.edu>
jOHN, i agree 100% with your remarks about reporters need to write things quickly. I think I found the headline of the editorial and unwritten assumptions
most annoying. Almost none of the FNC people I have interacted with are
unaware of the commercialization and privitization aspects of the NREN.
Almost nobody wants a high bandwidth upgrade to NSFNET without furthur
progress on those issues. The T3 upgrade of the NSFNET implied a change
from a physical governement operated network to a government portion of
a larger , at least semi-commercial network. The ANS CO+RE operation, the
formation of the CIX and its interoperation with the regional networks. The
likelihood, in fact inevitibality, of ANS joining the CIX all indicate that
any NREN, even only a "souped-up NSFNET" will have a strong if not dominant
privitized and commercialized aspect.
Therefore a warning against " A government-operated broadband national network"
is in my mind simply the construction of red herring with a concurrent
warning against consuming it.It makes all those who believe that the
government doesn't have its collective head screwed on right feel better
with their beliefs without contributing constructively to the debate on
the real issues surrounding the future as well as interim NREN.
Lastli in terms of Kobielis's 3 suggestions
1. Sponsor basic R & D
Who has suggested otherwise? I too am in favor of motherhood and I like
well made apple pie but this is a cliche in this context
2. Build a Commercial market
Who is against this? The question here is a how question! What is the best
timing? Who do we transition? Should it be done cold-turkey?
All the players I know are very pleased to see RBOC's interested in
competing and building the broadband information services market. Some of
us, of course, are a bit skeptical about their ability to deliver.
3.Establish a showcase national network.
I really don't understand enough about the proposed NPAN to be able
to intelligently comment. The idea of a federal government implemented
NREN for the masses seems to pose at least as many problems as it solves.
Richard
------- Forwarded Message
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 21:20:32 CDT
>From: John S. Quarterman <jsq@tic.com>
Message-Id: <28b470f0@tic.com>
X-Mailer: UUPC/mail 1.095
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
>From: Richard Mandelbaum <rma>
Cc: com-priv@uu.psi.com, 0003904868@mcimail.com
Cc: jsq@tic.com
Subject: Re: Network World "The Vision of a national research net needs rethinking"
>From my perspective the editorial proves
>1) Editorials should always be taken with a grain of salt
>2) Don't believe everything that you read
>3) People who write for national publications should do a better job of
>researching the subject they are writing about.
Like many people on this list, I tend to agree with your first two
points, and maybe even the third. But reporters will write things
quickly because that's their job. I'm curious in this case as to
what particular technical or political information you think should
have been known to that particular reporter. It might be of use
to the next, if it is readily available and is pointed out to them....
John S. Quarterman
jsq@tic.com
512-320-9031
fax 512-320-5852
Matrix Information and Directory Services, Inc. (MIDS)
701 Brazos Suite 500
Austin, TX 78701
------- End of Forwarded Message
