[2833] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Backbone solicitation: Bait and Switch??
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Tue Jun 9 22:15:19 1992
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: 9 Jun 92 22:05:22 EDT (Tue)
From: cook@tmn.com (Gordon Cook)
Message-From: Gordon Cook <cook@tmn.com>
So what George Strawn is talking about in the solicitation is TWO very
high speed backbone providers? Just to make sure that I understand -- he
is talking about TWO very high speed backbones. Let's say RCI and
WillTell come in with the winning bids. EACH much offer a proposal that
connects ALL Network Access Points together in TWO separate backbones --
each backbone a part of each different service provider's digital
network?? How critical in planning and costing such a proposal is to know
how many NAPS there will be and where they will be? I believe that it was
said that these facts would not be known until August 3.
Yeah two very high speed backbone service providers. :-< I just reread
the solicitation twice and I see only the singular used! One award for a
routing authority....one award the backbone service provideR.
FLAME ON:
What on earth is going on? Don't we owe the existence of an award for a
separate routing authority to the concern that with two different backbone
service providers, to give one the routing authority would be to
discriminate against the other?
Did the NSF make a committment to the community last november for 2
backbone providers? If so can they change that committment now?
One other major question...... it is noted that the backbone service
provider "may have connections and customers beyond those specified by
NSF." It seems that this gives continued blessing for the winner of the
agreement to continue to do what ANS does and sell surplus bandwidth
commercially? Now if there is a firewall put up so that customers who buy
such bandwidth can NOT use their access to the very high speed backbone to
do business with the NSFnet attached universities and research labs, then
this seems OK. How many think there will be a firewall?
If we are now down to one provider don't we have -- because of the
embedding by the NSF of ANOTHER five years of AUP in the vBNS (remember
last November it was gonna be for only 3 years) -- a replication of the
continued privilege that has created all the problems with the CIX and ANS
over the past year?
Is not the KING (NSF) saying to the road building companies: build me a
high speed road and do it for almost nothing because YOU will get issuance
of letters patent from the crown that will grant YOUR customers privileges
that the customers of those who loose out will not have? (Also in 18th
century France the holder of the letters patent could CHARGE the common
folk for the privilege of using the kings highway.)
Is the NSF with the blessing of congress auctioning off to the lowest
bidder with the greatest "cost sharing" the privilege of building a
national testbed for broadband ISDN..... one where all the loosers can
only observe from the position of their respective network access points?
Is this how the current budget situation forces us to build new technology
in increasingly bankrupt America? Would not MITI find some direct role
for **all** the players in the vBNS -- rather than auctioning off all the
benefits to the lowest bidder??
