[10846] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Collet)
Sat Mar 12 09:46:03 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 06:59:40 -0500
From: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>,
Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
How is a NAP different from an Airport? Network service providers are the
airlines. RA is the FAA. So, if the airport is important enough the
airlines will land. Conclusion: Sprint will connect to all the NAPs. Speed,
T1 or T3, will depend on whose at the NAPs.
Bob Collet
> Return-Path: <marty@psilink.com>
> Message-Id: <9403111710.AA42344@schoff230.herndon.psi.com>
> Date: Fri, 11 Mar 1994 17:10:42 +0000
> From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>
> To: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>, "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.net>
> Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
>
> Dan,
>
> It is an interesting question.
>
> How can anyone answer this question without facts in a dozen areas from
> price to performance to security.
>
> But let's start at the baseline - If a service organization had
> conectivity to all the places that it needs to communicate through
> other means, why connect to a NAP? Seems like the cost/benefit ratio
> is infinity.
>
> On another baselin issue, the NSF and its contractors have wiretapped
> information out of the NSFNet for years, fundamentally ignoring the
> complaints of many organizations. I believe that many of the
> commercial Internet providers now get much less than 10% of their
> traffic from/to the NSFNet.
>
> Assuming the NAPs will not guarantee a NSF/Government no-wiretap
> interconnect, do we want to perpetuate the wiretapping that the NSF
> started long ago for another generation of Internetworking for
> that <10% traffic. Or is it time to take another evolutionary/
> revolutionary step as was taken in 1990 with commercial access?
>
> Marty
>
>
> > Return-Path: <dlynch@interop.com>
> > Message-Id: <9403061926.AA11877@polaris.interop.com>
> > Date: 6 Mar 1994 11:23:23 -0800
> > From: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>
> > Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
> > To: "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.net>
> > Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> >
> > Reply to: RE>>"Fed **deal** may speed
> > Rick, Thanks for the clarification on NAPs from th estandpoint of
> > your commercial view. Let me try to put words in your mouth that
> > would be even more clarifying for end users. Are you saying that
> > there is no technical reason (that is, packets would still flow to/
> > from all destinations on the Internet) and no financial reason (that
> > is, it does not save (or make) you money) for your company to utilize
> > the NAPs?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
