[10643] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed MCI's ATM rollout"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marvin Sirbu)
Thu Mar 3 11:08:17 1994
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 1994 10:52:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com, cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
In-Reply-To: <9403011755.aa19069@pandora.sf.ca.us>
Excerpts from internet.com-priv: 1-Mar-94 "Fed **deal** may speed MC..
by Gordon Cook@path.net
> There is also an excellent chance that PSI and UUnet will not interconnect at
> the NSF sponsored NAPs. If so it could have interesting implications for
> network connectivity.
This is a very interesting spectulation. May I ask what it is based upon?
Note that, under the conditions that NSF has put on requests by the
regionals for funding, they may purchase access to the NAPS only from a
Network Service Provider which connects to ALL of the NAPS. Thus, if
PSI and UUnet choose not to interconnect at the NAPs the following
things happen:
1) PSI would have to give up its current funding from Nysernet
2) PSI and UUnet become ineligble for receiving NSF funds via any regional
3) It _may_ (emphasis on may) become more difficult for academic
institutions which are linked via the NAPS to communicate with the
commercial customers of PSI and UUnet. This could be avoided only if
some third carrier (CORen?) connects to both the NAPS and the CIX and
thus routes the traffic to PSI and UUnet via the CIX instead of via the
NAPs. Since it cannot be commercially attractive for PSI or UUnet to
make it impossible for their commercial customers to interact with
academic insitutions, one would be forced to believe they are counting
on the second solution. But the second solution simply means that some
third network has to get paid for transit traffic between the CIX and
the NAPS; how is that in PSI or UUnet's commercial interest?
Accordingly, I conclude that your speculation is absurd on its face.
Marvin Sirbu
