[1825] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Understanding the decision to Build a BIG T-3
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Wed Jan 1 22:42:12 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 1 Jan 92 22:27:30 EST (Wed)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 01-JAN-92 22:27
cook@tmn
In his open letter to the Internet Community Al Weis said:
"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."
Al, Hans Werner, Erik, Jordan or anyone who knows what I am missing please
educate me. For I am confused by Al's statement which implies that the
T-3 network COULD have been built in such a way as to ONLY accomodate the
needs of NSF sponsored institutions without the "additional capacity" that
used ANS funds. How is this possible? I thought T-3 was T-3 was T-3.
Hans Werner's and Jordan's explanations were helpful in elucidating other
fuzzy areas of the T-3 earlier in the week and since I am not a techie,
perhaps there is something like the topology of core nodes versus end
nodes that is the answer. (For example would it be laying T-3 pipes in
the same topology as the T-1 network rather than using the MCI national
backbone?)
Whatever the difference, apparently there was a choice: build a T-3 to
serve just the needs of the academic community or build a larger
T-3 that could be sold to "other potential users, including commercial
users." A decision was made to build the larger T-3. Apparently it was
made without consulting the community as a whole. I do not wish to pass
judgement on this decision, but rather to try to help to identify
precisely what is dividing the community in the hope that such knowledge
will be useful for opening channels of focused communication and hopefully
lead to understanding and perhaps constructive compromise. Is my
reasoning sound?
