[90] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Is SUNFLASH misuse of the network?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin Lee Schoffstall)
Sun Nov 11 10:26:12 1990
To: sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber)
Cc: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 10 Nov 90 19:38:51 -0600.
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 90 09:30:06 -0500
From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff@psi.com>
Your understanding is wrong on several levels:
1) PSI practice
2) basic economics, and restrictions
When PSI was formed our sales/marketing focus was and still is on
the commercial sector interested in unrestricted use of Internet
technology. [Through our relationship with NYSERNet Inc., they
focus on the academics of NYS, we provide them service]. This has
been executed for the past 11 months. We choose this path since
we did not want to disrupt the non-profit mid-levels providing
appropriate R&E support to the academic organization, disturbance
of that infrastructure and those co-dependancies did not seem
to be to anyone's best interest, except apparently ANS's.
As far as I can tell from the outside ALTERNET has essentially
done the same.
Providing backbone service to the mid-levels is an interesting
concept, essentially NSF give it to them for free, so any commercial
endeavor clearly has a lot of margin to work with, and is highly
motivated. But in some sense this is only a piece of the problem.
THE NSFNET IS NOT THE ONLY NETWORK THAT HAS USE RESTRICTION. BARRNet
has restrictions on its use, as do many other networks, they do this
to protect themselves, legally, financially, and taxation wise.
So, there appear to be no benefit (for anyone) in the model that you suggest.
Now despite all of that, there are more and more cases where mid-levels
appear to be encouraging purely commercial actions, despite their
bylaws, the direction of their trustee's, lawyers, and organizations
at risk. That is a way to do business which has been compared to the
Drexel-Burnham method, leverage, wheeling-dealing, and ultimate
bankruptcy.
The mid-levels have less than 2 years to decide their fate, i'd guess
that they'll negotiate for a year (internally and externally), and
implement until oct92, the scheduled death of the NSFNet.
Marty
---------
If psi was in the position of offering to regionals an alternative
to using the NSF-NET for such traffic, this could be avoided as most
regional members would find such service useful. Unfortunately, PSI
has made no statements of willingness to do this. Rather, PSI wants
to compete directly with the regionals for direct connections to
end-users, or at least that is my understanding.
Will PSI offer the alternative and cooperate with the regionals?
Is my understanding wrong? What of the other commercial providers?
--
Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking
Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support
Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
