[1815] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ANS Letter to the Internet Community
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Adams)
Tue Dec 31 17:58:18 1991
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 91 17:55:05 -0500
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
To: weis@ans.net, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: your article <CMM.0.90.2.694216227.weis@home.ans.net>
> 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.
Thank you for publicly admitting that the T3 network was built unlike
the T1 network. It supports my claim that it was not a natural upgrade
of the original solicitation but a completely separate situation that
should have been publicly competed.
I also appreciate your admission of gaining an competitive advantage.
(Else why would you defend it as appropriate?)
Again, if you were not SHARING the T3 facility, no one would be complaining.
The fact that you changed the nature of the original solicitation (in which
I can't find any reference to mixing commericial traffic or shared services)
is the central point. A T3 network DEDICATED to the NSFNET would have
been appropriate. A SHARED service is not.
Lastly, what ANS choses to do with its profits is completely irrevelant to
the issues, but makes for great rationalization. You're either commercial
or not. You can't occupy some area in between by claiming to be
going good things with your profits.
