[430] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
extending the internet via direct dial
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bob Sutterfield)
Sun Mar 24 15:20:49 1991
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 14:57:20 -0500
From: Bob Sutterfield <bob@morningstar.com>
To: tmn!cook@uunet.uu.net
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: tmn!cook@uunet.uu.net's message of Sat Mar 23 14:52:01 1991 <9103231953.AA08653@uunet.UU.NET>
From: tmn!cook@uunet.uu.net
Date: Sat Mar 23 14:52:01 1991
Would someone draw me a clearer picture of just what is meant by
using the Telebit technology Brian talks about to provide internet
connectivity independent of any controlling administrative entity.
I can't quite grasp how this technology extends the network...
Networks built on UUCP and Fidonet transport technologies are
ubiquitous and democratic because one can connect two sites and begin
useful work with very little fuss and bother, and very little capital
investment. At low traffic volumes and with low service expectations,
the per-packet charges you pay to the telephone company are considered
reasonable.
Until very recently, if one wished to connect two geographically
separated sites with IP, it was necessary to purchase expensive router
hardware and establish a permanent connection with a leased line, even
if the connection would only be used intermittently, at low speeds,
and with low traffic volume. This made the cost of entry into the IP
networking world too steep a hump for many to climb. It also
contributed to IP's reputation as a big ticket ivory-tower research
toy, unable to solve the little guys' problems.
Now, with on-demand dialups, the benefits of IP networking are able to
trickle down to the "have-nots", to borrow Mandelbaum's terminology.
Many organizations need the ability to occasionally throw packets
hither and yon, but don't need the multigigabit data hoses like Big
Science. Since the physical layer is being paid for by the
individuals who are using it, they needn't worry about Acceptable Use
and other such concerns. Just as in the UUCP and Fido worlds, IP
links can now be established, used, and decomissioned as needed; all
without prior approval of central authorities. Routing between those
two sites who want to exchange packets becomes a local issue. Dialup
IP can be "networking for the rest of us".
This still doesn't address the issue of whether the central management
at NIC.DDN.MIL is going to authorize the propagation of *.su routes
through the NSFnet's core gateways. But at least Mr Volodin and his
comrades can begin enjoying the benefits of internal IP connectivity
while the political dust settles. All they need is a PC or a UNIX box
or a Netblazer at each end, modems to connect them, and someone
willing to pay the phone bills.
For example what could Dimitrii do now with this technology that he
could not do with a more ordinary modem and a direct dial to a $20
per month account on Colorado's Supernet?
I'm not familiar with Supernet, so I can't make an informed
comparison. Is it another IP connectivity vendor like Alternet, PSI,
and CERFnet?
