[10695] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed MCI's ATM rollout"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Adams)
Sun Mar 6 00:27:17 1994
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 17:31:20 -0500
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
To: com-priv@psi.com
>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
Let me put it simply to you.
At this time I am not aware of any reason to connect to the NSF NAPs. They
serve no purpose (other than perhaps a continuation of empire building
by certain government agencies)
Similarly, I see no reason for MAE east particiapnts to "transition" to an
NSF funded NAP in DC. The only difference is that the NSF funded NAP
cost more money to the participances. Gee thanks Steve... Great idea
to PAY someone to deliver a service more expensive than already
provided commercially. Almost as brilliant as defining a NAP in New
York City where there are no providers to connect to it.
Of course if some reason materializes to connect to a NAP, then
we might consider it, but don't count on it happening just to
saitisfy NSF invented "needs"
If NSF would get the hell out of the way and stop confusing things
with bad ideas like NAPs, you would see a nice stable set of interconnect
points materialize WITHOUT governement money or meddling. Right now, the
only ones connecting to the NAPS will be the ones who are afraid not to
--rick
