[981] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
some dumb questions from the gallery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Sun Jul 14 10:05:52 1991
To: nren-discuss@psi.com (NREN discussion list),
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 9:06:07 PDT
From: Randy Bush <njin!m2xenix.psg.com!randy%uupsi.UUCP@psi.com>
Having lurked com-priv and nren-dicsuss from early on, some basic issues seem
(from the peanut gallery) to have been treated a bit lightly.
o It seems that the trend of the last few years, if projected but one or two
more years, has the the regionals and the CIXen standing on their own,
providing interconnectivity, ... Essentially meeting the goals of NSFNET.
Good stuff!
o Then why is the government about to use *large* amounts of public funds to
subsidize what appears to be a nascent IBM/MCI monopoly of one of the core
aspects of technology in the country?
o Does ANS need to move so quickly because the regionals and CIXen are growing
up too fast?
o Where is any sort of 'level playing field' coming out of Gore's legislation?
o Where's a scheme whereby the midlevel and users pay for only what they need
and have a choice of competing suppliers for connectivity? Is there any
way to actually find out what the market needs and is willing to pay for?
o What happened to the suggestion that, for any subsidization, a backbone
provider would have to guarantee connectivity to all other backbones?
o Is a T3 backbone really needed by the users, or only by a very small subset
of them? Are we being led to publicly subsidize a nascent monopoly with the
excuse of technology for which there is no clear demand?
There is also a rumor I would like to have laid to rest or to be clarified.
o What about quiet installation of T3 links to some cities (Seattle, Detroit,
...)? Who's doing it, for whom, who's paying, and why?
If folk will tell me I'm off the wall, or will discuss these seemingly
substantial issues, I'll be nice and shut up for six more months. Otherwise,
we can keep bashing the yellow press; it's certainly easy.
randy
