[10738] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: clarifying NAP discussions
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David R Conrad)
Mon Mar 7 13:08:46 1994
To: Tony Rutkowski <amr@isoc.org>
Cc: Marvin Sirbu <ms6b+@andrew.cmu.edu>, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Mar 1994 16:49:23 +0500."
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 1994 20:26:52 +0900
From: David R Conrad <davidc@iij.ad.jp>
>It is unfortunate this dialogue is so USA centric - as offshore
>Internauts could portray the daunting problems they have faced in
>dealing with heavily regulated monopoly provisioning environments.
Speaking for myself only, I'd say yes, you all in the US have it easy.
I personally think any attempt to bring the US government into the
picture more than it already is is incredibly shortsighted and
foolhardy. What is broken that bringing in the government is going to
(in the best case) fix? After experiencing what a bureaucracy can do
to a small company attempting to become an IP service provider, I'd
say the idea of actually asking a governmental organization to take an
interest in regulating some part of the US portion of the Internet is
(to put it mildly) confused.
In terms of international participation in this discussion, I'm
probably pointing out the obvious, but I feel this discussion is
primarily about NAPs and the NSFNet (or rather the NSFNet's
successor), *not* the Internet. As such, it is appropriately,
USA-centric. I'm more interested in the developments of the D-GIX
than I am of the NAPs, as the D-GIX has the potential for being a
solution to the connectivity situation in areas that don't already
have solutions.
But, given prompting, I do have a few questions:
Who, among the existing service providers, is going to connect
the NAPs?
Who among those service providers is going to provide transit
from the AP region to Europe (and vice versa) and how much
will it cost?
In what way is the NAP filled world different than the
existing situation?
Cheers,
-drc
