[1759] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: More on minor correction to Bill Schrader's posting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Schoffstall)
Mon Dec 16 22:59:38 1991
In-Reply-To: <9112162122.AA11196@cise.cise.nsf.gov>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 21:48:36 -0400
To: "Stephen Wolff" <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
From: "Martin Schoffstall" <schoff@mail.psi.net>
Reply-To: schoff@psi.com
>DATE: Mon, 16 Dec 91 16:20:39 EST
>FROM: Stephen Wolff <steve@ncri.cise.nsf.gov>
>
>->Ahh. So their "just a subcontractor" of the "original cooperative
>->agreement"....
>
>I don't know why you use the quote marks, since you're not quoting me.
Sorry I should be using single quotes for lack of italics or bold...
They represent phrases with hidden/additional meanings - they are the
"new speak" of the official party line Internet powers-that-be.
however they are quotes from past messages and remarks from you.
>
>->Then could you tell me why ANS is trying to get NEARNet to sign a contract
>->on a NSFNet T3 connection that you (NSF) bought? [This from John Rugo's
>->posting of last week].
>
>I don't think there's any pressure there. If NEARNet wants ANS' "commercial"
>traffic, ANS wants 'em to say so in writing. NSF doesn't own the gateway,
>but we've specified that R&E usage is not to be compromised.
>
You don't own the gateway but you pay what? $100K-$300K for the
"firehose" (whether they get water there is optional according to all reports).
Now given that this is a government resource there, can PSI sign a
contract with nearnet to provide them with commercial access through
that interface?
Marty
PS: you've only responded to one of the many threads in the original
questions, we should go back to the others.
