[10850] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Sat Mar 12 12:26:34 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 09:37:56 +0000
From: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>
To: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>, "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>,
Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
airports were built (as a piece of the puzzle) to deal with a monopoly
situation that the US government determined was needed for public safety with
respect to lumbering commercial jets in a limited volume of airspace.
Even with the monopoly situation few airports are owned and or managed by the
Federal government, municipalities are big owners of airports. Aside from
public safety issues and International agreements the Feds are not
fundamentally involved in those airports.
Several initiatives to have airports owned by purely commercial concerns have
been politically controversial. The current discussion of turning over the
air control system in the US to something other than the US Government is
also an area of controversy.
There is no requirement for a monopoly interconnect strategy because there is
no public safety concerns. In fact my thesis is that the public safety
concern (Bill of Rights Privacy issue) has been CAUSED by the NSF wiretap
strategy and is about to become worse through "economic incentives" and
legislation (ala Clipper).
Your analogy does not work.
Marty
PS: People will join the NAP for religious/political reasons, using the
cost/benefit criteria of below, or of your own creation the exercise of
creating an econmoic model for connect/non-connect is left to the student.
-----------
> Message-Id: <9403120659.AA40766@Bob Collet>
> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 06:59:40 -0500
> From: Bob Collet <rcollet@sprintlink.net>
> To: "Martin L. Schoffstall" <marty@psilink.com>,
> "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.com>, "Rick Adams" <rick@uunet.uu.
> net> Cc: "com-priv" <com-priv@psi.com>
> Subject: Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
>
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
