[2450] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Truncated Version of Communications Daily Articles on NREN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Fri Feb 28 23:48:09 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 28 Feb 92 23:19:05 EST (Fri)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
<<MESSAGE from>> Gordon Cook 28-FEB-92 23:19
cook@tmn
The last week has gone by in a predicatble blur.... so my memory may be
hazy. I do not think any of the following has been posted to com-priv
before, but if it has please forgive me.
Copyright
COMMUNICATIONS DAILY
Wednesday February 5, 1992
NSF EMBROILED IN COMMERCIALIZATION DEBATE
by Brock N. Meeks
[Note by Gordon Cook - I am told that because of copyright these can't be
distributed in full text for therefore I shall omit some paragraphs from
each article.]
[opening paragraphs omitted.]
Stakes are high. NSF has injected $16 million in federal money
into IBM-MCI joint venture to upgrade NSFnet to T-3 capacity.
Outcome of debate could determine how NREN evolves. Two paths are
possible. First appeals to majority of current network users and is
in keeping with original vision of NREN as equal access, open
network that serves as "public resource." Second focuses on what
one analyst called "the sizzle" -- high-speed, gigabit service of
use mainly to Fortune 500 companies. Problem in "sizzle" is that
original vision of NREN as research and education network gets lost,
analyst said. The proposed 1993 budget includes $123 million for
2nd year of 5-year plan for development of NREN up to gigabit speed.
Unfair Advantage Claimed
=========================
Critics charge that allowing ANS CO+RE to set policies for
commercial traffic hookup to network will provide ANS with unfair
advantage and give it competitive edge over others when NSF issues
rebid for network management in Aug. Several groups are worried
that network privatization will progress with ANS holding dominant
position. Computer advocacy groups, such as Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), are pushing for open commercial environment that
encourages several companies to offer competing products. Advocates
of competition say this will allow pricing structures to seek their
own levels, resulting in lower prices for all users.
[paragraphs omitted]
ANS Pres. Allan Weis said Schrader's claims are "absolutely not
true." He said that whole Internet is "very competitive" arena and
pointed to several bids ANS has lost to PSI and other competitors.
He said ANS "overbuilt" network and now simply is seeking to sell
the excess capacity. However, critics say that ANS lobbied NSF
early last year to build T-3 backbone when it wasn't necessary.
When NSF granted ANS more money for project, critics such as
Schrader were outraged, charging that federal govt. had subsidized
ANS's R&D and now has "essentially underwitten" its commercial
venture, ANS CO+RE. Current NSFnet policy requires fees for
commercial traffic carried on network to be paid into financial
"pool" that then is distributed to regionals for their part in
helping move along commercial traffic, said Susan Eldred, ANS dir.
of public affairs. Model was set by ANS, in agreement with NSF.
Commercial users are free to seek other network providers; however,
she said, to make use of T-3 backbone, "you have to use our model."
'Model' Is Key Element at Issue
===============================
But issue of "model" is key. Under old model, no fees were
charged; each network just paid its costs for maintenance and
overhead from general computer services fund within each
organization. "It was an old-style 'gentleman's agreement,'" said
Joel Maloff, ANS customer services vp. No one kept track of how
much traffic each was required to carry from another network, he
said -- it was all done in spirit of community interest. "But we no
longer have the luxury of just saying: 'I trust you and you trust
me.'" With cost of technology increasing, and commercial traffic
rising to record levels, Maloff said now is time for "hard-and-fast"
prices. Critics say that's unfair because ANS has "only ball in
town" and forces users to play by its rules. ANS admits that
current model for pricing "is not perfect." Eldred said
commercialization policies are "evolving situation" and are likely
to look "much different a year from now." Critics claim that within
year ANS will "have a lock" on future direction of network.
[paragraph omitted]
James Curlin, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) mgr. of
telecommunications and computing technologies, said OTA's
in-progress report on NREN is critical of NSF's current position on
privatizing network: "We don't think the people at NSF have really
thought through the process. They've failed to recognize the
ramifications of their choices and have ignored the existing state
of the telecommunications environment."
Copyright
COMMUNICATIONS DAILY
Thursday February 6, 1992
FREE ACCESS TO NETWORK OVERLOOKED
IN FAVOR OF COMMERICAL E-MAIL
by Brock N. Meeks
[ opening paragraphs omitted]
Some reviewers are encouraged to submit electronically, but "most
are just told to use regular mail," said Herman Fleming, NSF reports
clearing officer. Most NSF reviewers -- professors or professional
researchers -- have access to federally subsidized free E-mail system
known as Internet, network of 32 universities and research labs, that
connects directly to NSFnet. However, NSF has no standard procedure for
electronic submittal.
[paragraph omitted]
In July 5, 1991, letter to NSF criticizing requirements to use
commercial E-mail, Hugh Ellis, assoc. prof. of biology at U. of San
Diego, wrote: "Why would anyone bother to set up such a potentially
convenient communication system [i.e., review submissions] on a
restricted mail service? Why wouldn't Bitnet or Internet or both be
used when most reviewers have access to one or both of them and NSF has
both? If there is such an option, why wasn't I informed?"
Reviewers are directed to send in their comments "as assigned by
program director," said Dan Vanbellegham, assoc. program dir. for
NSFnet program. In Ellis's case, instructions for electronic
submittal specifically stated that he use commercial system known as
OMnet. Ellis said: "First, I found that I had to subscribe to the
service, and then I had to use my own money to boot." Confused, he
queried his colleagues about OMnet. "Nobody I knows uses this
system," he told us. "Besides, I can use the Internet for free."
OMnet, founded by former NSF staffer Robert Heinmiller,
specializes in supplying commercial electronic mail facilities to
ocean sciences professionals. It has several contracts with govt.
organizations, including NSF. When asked why some NSF programs are
required to use OMnet, rather than free access through Internet,
Heinmiller replied: "We provide value-added services and our
network is far easier to use." But what kind of value offsets free
access? "Lots of customer support," he said. "Besides, most
[reviewers] are federally funded" and can get govt. to "pick up the
tab."
Vanbellegham said NSF directions for submitting reviews are "set
on an ad hoc basis." He blamed lack of network use on "selective
ignorance" on part of individual program directors. He said
confusion on using network to its fullest advantage was based on
lack of education: "It's our job to make sure program directors are
made aware of what the network can offer. But we're not the best
marketers of our own system."
Copyright
COMMUNICATIONS DAILY
Friday February 21, 1992
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION'S NSFNET
by Brock N. Meeks
National Science Foundation's (NSF) oversight of NSFnet will be
subject of March 12 hearing by House Subcommittee on Science,
Research and Technology. Chmn. Boucher (D-Va.) said NSF will be
called on to answer questions "for the record" on policy and
management issues raised in articles published by Communications
Daily.
[paragraph omitted]
NSF will be required to state its plans for future of network
as it evolves into NREN, said James Wilson, Subcommittee's
science consultant. Panel will ask NSF to "pin down" its vision
of NREN. "Our view will be the long term," Wilson said. To that
end, hearing will want to look first at "what's happening right
now with NSFnet," he said.
Hearing is "move in right direction," said William Schrader,
pres. of Performance Systems International (PSI), company that
provides commercial networking services. PSI is ANS CO+RE
competitor and has criticized NSF decisions giving ANS right to
control commercial access to T3 network. Schrader said "firm
guidelines" from NSF are needed on how it plans to take corrective
action on what he called present "monopoly position" of ANS.
Anything that helps NSF make decisions moving network closer to
original NREN vision of being true "public asset," and not merely
network designed for big business, will be welcome, he said.
[paragraph omitted]
When news that hearing might be held leaked out over nationwide
electronic mailing list, ANS spokeswoman Susan Eldred wrote back to
mailing list that "I did some checking" and "those facts [on
probable hearing] were wrong." She wrote: "As a taxpayer, I would
be more than a little annoyed if a House Subcommittee convened to
discuss some baseless accusations by a disgruntled competitor."
When we called Eldred for comment on hearing, she said only: "I
don't know anything about it."
Sources in Office of Management & Budget (OMB), which have
oversight of NSF budget decisions, said NSF didn't discuss policy
issues as to how competition for access to network was to be
assured. They also said that NSF has held no internal policy
discussions to ensure that -- during upcoming solicitation for
re-bid of network management -- guidelines are in place to make sure
award of contract "isn't a slam dunk" for incumbent manager, ANS.
