[1942] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Summarizing the Situation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Fri Jan 10 01:13:12 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 10 Jan 92 01:06:06 EST (Fri)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 10-JAN-92 1:06
cook@tmn
The interaction on this list seems to be shifting in significant ways. I'd
like to test what I think I am observing. And would welcome reaction as to
whether readers think my observations are reasonable.
We appear to be determined to build a foundation for true commercial
service. Just what true commercial service is I am not sure. I guess we
define it as traffic that is not in support of research and education.
(Like passing corporate spread sheets?) Or is true commercial use with
Dialog the ability to do a database search via the network and submitt a
visa number to bill to or a departmental charge number, via the network
and getting results back, via the network. Is THIS what patrons of
NEARnet will be able to do if it signs ANS connectivity agreement? Or
will they just be able to send email to Dialog's employees?
In search of the grail of commerciality, we appear to have the holder of
the cooperative agreement instructed by the NSF to impose a surcharge on
network traffic of those entities who wish to declare themselves
commercial. Or was this ANS's idea alone? Why anyone would *DO* such a
thing is much less clear if what is going to constitute commercial versus
non commercial is so ambiguous. Suppose Dialog had attached to a regional
network? Didn't Steve say then any university or college on the net that
wished to "aver" that its use was for research and education would be in
conformity with acceptable use?
Meanwhile some are giving rather compelling arguments that the operator of
the government backbone gets paid twice for this traffic - once by the NSF
for making the backbone available and again by the mid-level so it can
recieve benefits from the infrastructure pool. Some people seem confused
as to what the purpose of this double payment is. And while I am glad
Professor Sirbu understands how all this is to work, I'll bet fewer than
one per cent of the readers of this list understand. I appreciate the ANS
attempts to explain, but I think the only thing that could clear up the
vast amount of my remaining fog on this is an all day face-to-face seminar.
How about the rest of you?
In the meantime list readers have discovered in addition to the CIX, EINet
and now are debating the merits of Infolan. With all these alternatives,
one or two just wondered why we are spending public monies on this in the
first place. Wouldn't it be ironic if we solved the acceptable use
problem by creating such a tangled mess that with the CIX growing stronger
every day, the mid-levels decided to connect to each other via the CIX?
With the strength of the EINet contract added to the CIX, is there anyone
who believes that mid-levels migration to the CIX is beyond the realm of
possibility? Com-bits seem holy. I have tried to understand why. But I
simply cannot do so.
Whatever became of the vision of that little girl from Tennessee dialing
up the Library of Congress to study dinosaurs? What happened to the NREN
vision? And where is the NSF? Things seem to me to be in disarray and I
am surprised that we haven't got Steve Wolff patching them back together!?
Maybe I've been in Washington too long and have grown muddle headed? Can
someone help sort things out!@?
