[1685] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The WEIS/AUPPERLE letter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Adams)
Tue Dec 10 20:22:53 1991
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
To: steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov (Stephen Wolff)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 20:19:37 EST
Cc: rick@uunet.uu.net, members@farnet.org, regional-techs@merit.edu,
In-Reply-To: <9112101549.AA25246@cise.cise.nsf.gov>; from "Stephen Wolff" at Dec 10, 91 10:47 am
->The reason it matters is that this penalizes legitimate researchers whose
->midlevel networks chose not to deal with ANS.
Of course, without the "commercial" option, Dialog wouldn't have connected
to the Internet at all - so whatever penalty there is is relative, not
absolute. I.e., before they connected nobody had access; now some do, but
not all.
Do you have evidence of this? I suspect that Dialog would have been
quite happy to connect to the internet if they were told that
the acceptable use decision was the burden of their customers rather than
their own.
I would expect that 99.9% of Dialogs internet business will meet the
acceptable use criteria. Afterall, there number of commercial to
commercial connections possible are expressed in single digits.
Dialog took the safe way out, but its not at all clear that they
had all options presented.
This "the only way you connect to everyone is to pay ANS" is why
people are complaining about ANS having an unfair advantage.
What has happened is the first step away from broad scale interconnection has happened.
---rick
