[2192] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Whose Gigabits Are we Bashing?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Wed Jan 29 14:43:24 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 29 Jan 92 14:20:48 EST (Wed)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 29-JAN-92 14:20
cook@tmn
Well this discussion *IS* beginning to illuminate.
For those who weren't with us in December 1990: Gordon's First Gigabits
Bashing Salon and Soiree refers to the December 11 1990 OTA Workshop on
Access to the NREN. Lemme see if I can remember who was there. Steve and
Mike Roberts representing traditional gigabit NREN interests were there.
Dave Hughes -gasp!- and George Johnston, an MIT physicist. Only problem
with George was that he was interested not in gigabits, but in K-12 use of
the network. He must have been reasonably effective because he received
an invite from a staffer from the House Science Committee to testify in
march.
We had librarians well represented. Cliff Lynch, Chuck McClure, Prue
Adler and someone sent by Paul Peters. Then there was a high school
teacher from Silver springs Maryland high school who used the net.
Someone from Mead Data central attended on behalf of the Information
industry as did Robert Simons, general Counsel for Dialog. Apologies to
whomever I have forgotten.
Now there were then and are now constituencies for the network that don't
need the extreme high bandwidth. OTA made a decision that these
constituencies should be given a forum in which to make their views known.
I perceived it not as gigabit bashing but as an opportunity for them to
say to Educom and the NSF that they'd like to sit down at the table with
the "big" boys. We went round the table and asked each participant to
state his or her view of the priority(s) to be served by the network.
Steve Wolff was very clear. First and foremost: the NREN should serve
the needs of the top 200 computational scientists in the Nation. Not
surprisingly there was considerable disagreement. If this was giagbit
bashing what can I say?
Now in Steve's reply I have difficulty discerning whether he is saying
that the scientists who need gigabits will cobble together something to
suit THEM or because they are altruistic they will cobble together
something to offer the AGGREGATE gigabits that will be needed if we get
large numbers of low end users on the network. The difference here is
very important. Clear channel gigabits is VERY expensive and a not yet
completely solved technology problem. I am told that aggregate gigabits
can be done with off-the-self technology and are affordable. The
difference is a significant one and is too often lost in the NREN rhetoric.
Without making it clear whether he wanted himself identified or not a very
senior member of the community said to me the other day: the 30 midlevels
could connect at T-1 to BOTH CIX east and CIX West for $100,000 per
mid-level per year. For $3,000,000 per year we could have the effect of
Aggregate T-3 on the CIX. Perhaps the NSF could assist the 25 to 50
universities that REALLY need the clear channel T-3 to connect to the ANS
backbone? Comments?
