[110] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
The previous message from the BITNET policy list
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stan Barber)
Sun Nov 11 21:10:24 1990
From: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 1990 19:58:44 CST
To: com-priv@psi.com
Someone asked about the "provacative comments" referenced in the previous message.
Here is that message:
>From: ccjp@BU-IT.BU.EDU (John Porter)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l
Subject: Re: BITNET 2
Message-ID: <9011092034.AA04324@bu-it.bu.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 90 20:34:04 GMT
Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies <POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET>
Lines: 34
Comments: To: POLICY-L%MARIST.BITNET@BUACCA.BU.EDU
I asked a similar bunch of questions last February and, although several
people on the list also indicated an interest in the subject, there was
no response from anyone in a planning or policy position. My operating
assumptions, therefore, on the basis that no response means there is
nothing there to respond with and on the basis of the development of
technology generally are that:
-BITNET/BITNET 2/CREN/... will continue to have a role for some time because
it provides connectivity to a lot of places that are not currently in a
position to connect to the Internet. There is no reason for an institution
on the Internet to be connected to BITNET except to communicate with
those institutions that cannot even gateway to the Internet because they
cannot handle the addresses or something.
-The NSFnet/regional net/... structure and technology has long since obsoleted
BITNET, and BITNET 2 basically acknowledges this fact. BITNET 2 is useful
only as a way of keeping BITNET alive until its constituency can migrate
to the national net.
-There may very well be another national network structure at some time in
the future but, whatever it is, it will be a successor to the current Internet,
not to BITNET. All new and interesting network developments and services
will happen on the Internet or its successors, not on BITNET. As the
importance of the national network grows, institutions not connected to
it and even institutions connected to it in ways that cannot support
high burst rates will be increasingly disenfranchised.
-We should all be working toward building one viable national network structure,
not perpetuating multiple dissimilar networks.
Oversimplified or too extreme? I'm always happy to be enlightened.
John Porter
Boston University
--
Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking
Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
