[10856] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: "Fed **deal** may speed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Manning)
Sat Mar 12 16:54:57 1994
From: bmanning@is.rice.edu (William Manning)
To: marty@psilink.com (Martin L. Schoffstall)
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 1994 12:55:29 -0600 (CST)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9403120937.AA56457@schoff230.herndon.psi.com> from "Martin L. Schoffstall" at Mar 12, 94 09:37:56 am
Martin L. Schoffstall
>
> 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.
>
> > > > From: "Dan Lynch" <dlynch@interop.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?
> > > >
Well, some of us have that "old time religion" that a global Internet is what
the prime lure of connectivity. And in an open market, you have to prostitute
yourself to support that, -if- you are willing to make global access a reality.
If the some of the "Feds" use one model and others use a different model,
then "religious fervor" will drive me to connect to everyone. In the
end this gives competitive advantage. Given the statments made thus far,
I'd put my money on Sprint. You have not specified your plans, while Rick
has stated his intentions. (actually, I'll put $10,000.00 US that Ricks
enterprise does connect to at least one of the NAPS, despite his statements
that would lead you to beleive the contrary.)
--
Regards,
Bill Manning
