[8912] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
How Will NSF Get Out of NSFnet Business? 3 Possible Scenarios.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Sat Dec 11 21:03:58 1993
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1993 18:03:14 PST
To: com-priv@psi.com
Tony Rutkowski says (according to Tim Salo on com-priv):
"However, the amount of costs the NSF now picks up is a minor
part of the Internet, essentially irrelevant compared to other
factors, and disappearing in a few months as NSFNet goes away
and the U.S. backbone traffic shifts to the existing commercial
internet backbone providers."
And then Philip Elmer Dewitt writes in TIME magazine:
"The change has already begun. NSF's contribution now
represents about 10% of the total cost of the network, and the
agency is scheduled to start phasing out its support next April,
removing at the same time what few restrictions still remain
against commercial activity."
Suddenly it seems to be the accepted wisdom in the mainstream
press that Federal support for the running of the Internet is a
thing of the past and that we no longer need be concerned about
the NSF or any other part of the feds trying to pick winners in
the NREN /NII ballgame.
**The common phrase that is heard again and again is that in
just a few months (April 30 1994) the NSF is gonna stop buying
the back bone and get out of the funding game.**
Problem is if the winner were announced tomorrow, I have yet
to hear anyone who believes that the new network
infrastructure could be ready for an operational switch over by
May 1. By the NSF's own reckoning (announced almost 2 years
ago) NSF will need a full year for the switch over once the new
cooperative agreement is announced.
Therefore it seems we have three possibilities:
Scenario A:
NSF awards solicitation to a new group of entities necessitating a
phase out of MERIT and the ANS/NSF backbone. The phase out
begins April 30th and runs probably for a year while the other
project ramps up and gets ready for the big switch over. Now
NSF has a budget that it itself estimated as 18 million a year for
the NEW infrastructure, PLUS an overlapping project cost of the
current million dollar a month project - the cost of which is NOT
likely to be lowered. (Eric Aupperle has already informed Wolff
that MERIT will require extra funds for a close down period *IF*
NSF chooses someone else.) So Scenario A *could* represent an
INCREASE in NSF spending from 12 million to as much as 30
million a year effective April 30 1994. Hardly what Rutkowskii
and TIME talk about.
But perhaps there *IS* a way that spending might not increase
so radically? As a reult we have:
Scenario B:
The NSF has no need of an extension *IF*, as its cost sharing, ANS
says it will run the ANS/NSF backbone at no additional charge
during a phase over to the operation of a new VBNS and network
access points which it also runs with its new partner Northern
Telecom in a very "model" of NAFTA cooperation. Once again
IBM, MCI and now NT have a taxpayer funded seat at the top of
the nation's most important data infrastructure. The current
backbone goes away and is replaced by the inter regional
connectivity program for which the NSF pays *full freight* for
the first year. Indeed the ANSnet backbone could simply be
renamed as the NSFnet interregional infrastructure. Boom now
the NSF is out of the backbone business and into the
interregional infrastructure business. Slight of hand -- now you
see it now you don't!
Meanwhile ANS takes new money from NSF along with its new
$5 million from NT and starts teachning Magellan how to speak
TCP/IP over ATM at OC-3. (Translation: it starts building the
VNBS.) The apparent end of all these machinations would be
that finally NSF achieves what everyone felt it had in mind back
in 1991 - an indefinite transfer of the pinnacle of national
network infrastructure into the hands of ANS.
Or perhaps there is
Scenario C:
Some *other* explanation that is obvious to Wolff but not to the
rest of us and since he isn't talking how are we to know?
Why is the NSF doing all this? Why is it creating an expectation
that it is getting out of the business and spending less not more?
Hard to say. But I can see things in 6 weeks when the
continuation of ANS's grant is announced: "well," says Steve, "we
looked around and came to the ultimate realisation that the only
way we could keep our costs from exploding as we were
promising people like Tony R and Philip Elmer-D we'd do was to
stay with the good folks from Ann Arbour who have been doing
such a fine job."
The facts that are known and the ones that are alleged don't
mesh with each other very well -- unless, that is, scenario B
turns out to be accurate.
In August and September of 1993 talk of legal action against the
solicitation was in the air. Such actions contemplated obtaining
an injunction against another extension. Whether or not the
threat of legal action has entirely disappated isn't clear. If the
threat were still there, the NSF would probably be even more
reluctant to tip its hand as to an extension. As long as one is not
announced what is there to enjoin?
Given the current situation, the question of NSF plans for an
extension seems increasingly relevant. Consequently, on
November 15, *almost a month* ago I sent a FOIA request to
NSF. Two questions-- short and sweet -- requiring a few
seconds to answer: will you offer MERIT an extension? Yes or
no. If yes for how long?
The NSF FOIA office seemed to think a request that short and
specific could be answered within the regulation 10 working
days. So on December 1 they told me they'd have some news on
Friday the third and if the news was anything other than that
the answer would be in the mail by then they'd call me. When
by Weds the 8th I heard nothing I started to call again daily and
after many calls the answer I have now is Steve Wolff has been
reminded more than once that he must act on the request and
either divulge the information or explain why he is exempt from
doing so. So far he has done neither - to the discomfort of the
legislative and public affairs people. They promise that they will
continue to pursue the matter with him as they are legally
required to do. Others have also told me their FOIA requests are
being ignored. (Makes one wonder if any one besides Steve
Wolff is in control of this operation?)
The question of an extension is almost certainly an action that
has been decided upon (perhaps I should ask the FOIA folk to
ask grants and contracts?). On the other hand if grants and
contracts knows - as well as Steve - could I not assume that the
FOIA people would go there on my behalf? My letter asked
whether it had been done and by no means specified Wolff as
the only source of an acceptable answer.
For sure people are playing games: I received mail last Weds
from a machine set up to mail anonymously (not the Finland
mailer) with an "off record" tip as to what NSF would do about
the renewal. When I forwarded it from path.net to my account
on tmn.com some received from lines finaly popped into the
header. The source of the mailing site? An office of one of the
key players. Truthful or disingenuous? I'd guess the latter since
legitimate sources generally appear with their own name, once
assurances are given.
So it certainly appears that the NSF is stone-walling in an
arbitrary and capricious manner -- waiting until the last
moment to spring its brave new world on us all -- while
spreading propaganda that, if true, it can use to justify an
indefinite extension of the status quo, and, if false, may be
announced so close to the april 30 deadline as to preclude action
by its adversaries.
[This posting may be reposted, but please, ONLY in its entirety.]
_______________________________________________________________
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
cook@path.net (609) 882-2572
_______________________________________________________________
