[1345] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Questions: ANS Plan for Commercial Services
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Mon Sep 16 14:39:01 1991
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
To: com-priv@psi.com (com-priv list)
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 11:38:53 PDT
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.685044682.ittai@shemesh.ans.net>; from "Ittai Hershman" at Sep 16, 91 2:11 pm
> If this is true, this is a sad state of affairs. What can we, the
> Internet providers, do to correct this? Is com-priv the right place
> to do it? Have you found your honest answers in this jumble?
Not at all. Last question I asked "Will ANS be joining CIX," was avoided
(with much bluff and subterfuge beforehand) by ANS's spokesperson with
the promise of an answer immediately after the Montana meeting. I have
yet to figure out whether my question was answered. Near as I can get,
the honest answer is "Hell no we won't. They're the enemy of ANS's
vision of commercial networking, but we won't say so publicly." Near as
I can tell from current discussion, the same would apply to regionals
interested in supporting their commercial neighbors to help defray the
costs of providing service to, for example, k12s.
> What does "the peanut gallery which has learned not to ask questions"
> want?
*Inter*-networking, I can get to anyone from any IP network. A choice of
providers, with none having a government subsidized advantage when
competing for either R, E, or C sites. A 'level playing field' so those
providers are competing honestly. A feeling that non-cream accounts such
as small commercials, k12, ... will be serviced.
> Following the Montana meeting, I posted a two-page summary of what was
> presented in Montana.
'Presented' is a far cry from 'discussed' or 'decided'. Experience to
date is that ANS's public presentations bear a *lot* of detailed reading,
and inside knowledge of the other 90% of the iceberg. We, the consumers,
don't have access to those data other then the innuendo provided here.
> With regard to alternate models of Internet interconnectivity, such as
> the CIX, we have publically stated our concerns (both technical and
> strategic) in an attempt to get feedback from the com-priv community.
> No one responded but Marty Schoffstall: a CIX co-founder.
Gak! A good number of us responded. We said that it was important that
ANS join the CIX and when would you announce your decision. You
stonewalled. Now you deny it was even asked!
And when I send private email specifically asking what ANS can do for me
as a potential customer (currently we use AlterNet and would switch if
offered a reasonable deal), I get told "Marketing will call," but it
never does. Do I conclude that there is no reasonable deal, or that you
don't bother to call back folk not in the F1000?
And you wonder why the peanut gallery is moving from hopeful, through
skeptical, to downright paranoid about ANS?
randy
