|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) To: com-priv@psi.com Cc: bzs@world.std.com.bill@tuatara.uofs.edu Date: Tue, 7 Jan 92 21:01:01 GMT In message <9201071921.AA23425@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >If the end-user is not-for-profit, but the vendor providing him with >access is for-profit, is access for-profit or not-for-profit? [ and ] >Universities often sell "spare" computing time to for-profit >organizations. ... Would >anyone argue that such a machine's attachment to the internet provides >added-value to those for-profit customers? In message <9201072022.AA04264@psi.com> bill@tuatara.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes: >Or, how about this little potential real-world example: > My daughter needs info for a school term paper. She connects to DIALOG >or some other Commercial Online Encyclopedia and starts extracting information. > > Is it commercial or not?? Is it education?? After all, my daughter is >only in 8th grade. If this is commercial and would be billed as such, there >goes any concept of residential connection right out the window. It seems increasingly clear to me that attempting to maintain a distinction between commercial traffic, which is paid for by end node subscribers, and R&E traffic, which is paid for centrally by NSF, is an endless rathole. I am beginning to think that it would be simpler to make the Internet backbone and mid-levels completely "commercial". If the present NSF subsidy were divided between the subscriber institutions according to their present usage, and each subscriber were free to select the service provider with the best value for the money, the market would sort itself out pretty fast. -- / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer CMC Rockwell lars@CMC.COM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |