[1813] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
ANS Letter to the Internet Community
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Allan H. Weis)
Tue Dec 31 16:54:14 1991
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 16:50:27 EST
From: Allan H. Weis <weis@ans.net>
To: com-priv@psi.com
An Open Letter to the Internet Community:
Over the past several weeks, many of you no doubt have been reading about the
accusations made against ANS by a few of our competitors. Those accusations
have appeared on com-priv, as well as in a number of publications, and they
include such allegations as secret agreements with the National Science
Foundation, misappropriation of government resources and use of federal funds
to establish a monopolistic position in the marketplace. These accusations
are totally false.
We at ANS have attempted to set the record straight through conversations
with various reporters, but, unfortunately, with mixed results. We have
resisted the urge to answer charges, point by point, because with all the
innuendos and blatant untruths that were being thrown about, wrapped in
slogans and sarcasm -- and a few personal attacks thrown in for good
measure -- the discussion was taking on the characteristics of some recent
political campaigns. We found this situation to be embarrassing, not only
for ANS and its customers, but for anyone who is genuinely concerned about
advancing the cause of high-speed networking in this country.
However, it has become obvious that the attacks are not going to stop. So,
we now feel we've come to the point where we have no choice but to defend
our reputation by answering at least the most serious accusations and
correcting some of the misleading information that is being disseminated.
Let's begin with the original NSF solicitation back in 1987. Merit won a
very competitive bid, which was based on a proposal for T1 services and which
provided the NSF with an option to upgrade the network to T3 services sometime
before the end of the five-year contract. Therefore, the deployment of T3 was
part of the original plan, and was always a matter of public record.
When traffic on the T1 network began to grow at an ever-accelerating rate,
the NSF evaluated its alternatives and decided to exercise the option to
upgrade the network. Those who now complain that the T3 network should have
been a separate bid are trying to rewrite history.
At no time did the NSF own any of the physical equipment or facilities used
in either the T1 network or the T3 network. The equipment/facilities either
were leased or owned by the founding partners of ANS, and later, by ANS. The
allegation that government-owned property was transferred to ANS is absurd.
Unlike the T1, the T3 network was built to accommodate the needs of NSF-
sponsored institutions plus other potential users, including commercial
users. This additional capacity was built using ANS funds. Any competitive
advantage gained by ANS is appropriate, considering the risks involved and the
experience gained in building the T3 network.
The excess revenues, net after taxes, from selling network attachments to
commercial customers will be put into an infrastructure pool, and these funds
will be used solely to improve network infrastructures, including the
upgrading of regional networks that agree to carry commercial traffic.
Regional networks that want to send commercial traffic generated by their
customers onto the backbone will be charged a fee, but again, these revenues
will be added to the infrastructure pool, with the participating regionals
eligible to receive funds from the pool. The NSF concurred with this plan,
as did representatives from a number of regional networks, before it was
openly discussed at the FARNET meeting in Montana last August. This plan
allows participating regional networks to become commercial service providers.
So instead of the handful of these providers that existed a few years ago,
dozens of potential competitors can emerge. Instead of stifling competition,
ANS is encouraging it.
ANS isn't stifling innovation either. Quite the contrary. Building a T3
network from scratch when the technology is so new that frequently there is
no test equipment available and no benchmarks established involves a lot of
pioneering effort and major innovation. It's a job that's tested the
inventiveness of all the participants.
In summary, there was no collusion with a government agency; there was no
misuse of government funds or other resources; there is no unfair
competitive advantage. But there is huge opportunity in this field for those
who are willing to take risks and to innovate. And everyone is welcome.
Al Weis
