karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (10/29/90)
This is a call to action by all interested parties. There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the Internet, into the hands of IBM. IBM has supposedly pledged to run this on a non-profit basis for some number of years. Of course, the number that's being bandied about is small, like "2"..... Anyone want to bet how long the Internet remains accessible to non-IBM people? Or whether the Internet ends up another Prodidy, with active censorship? Whether you'll have to buy an IBM system to hook into it, since they might decide that TCP/IP is no longer any good and now it's time to go to SNA or worse? Folks, if you love the Internet, and want to see it expand and grow, we need to insure that a few things happen: 1) The "acceptable use" policy on the NSFNet needs to be scrapped. Sure, this will bring problems. But it will also mean that commercial companies can tie in, pay their fair share, and make sure that the network capacity has the funding to continue to grow. 2) The backbone needs to be run as a regulated commodity. Perhaps even run by the Government, strange as that may seem. The goal of universal connectivity is not that far off right now, but there are companies and special interests who would like to see that never happen. We MUST insure that it does. 3) We must maintain and increase our lead as the information-processing leader in the world. It's the only area of superiority that we have left in world markets. A universally-accessible Internet is one way to achieve this goal. Face it, the "bright minds" aren't all in colleges or doing business with schools or the government. Many are in private industry or independant, and they should have access to this resource as well. 4) Finally, a freely accessible information exchange medium may be the second-best guarantee of freedom in this country (the first being the ability of the people to depose a despotic government). By keeping the passing of information from coast to coast available, fast and cheap, we keep the people informed. How to proceed: 1) A tax on access devices for the network may be the best way to fund it. I'm not sure about this, but it seems as though a "user fee" is one of the better ways to pay for the connectivity that we all enjoy and want to see furthered. 2) General subsidy isn't a bad idea either, but it's not ideal. Selling it to the general public will be difficult, especially with the things that hit the press now and again about X-rated GIF sites and the like. 3) Keep control in the hands of the many, or in the hands of a non-profit corporation funded EXCLUSIVELY to run this beast. Giving it to IBM or another pseudo-government company is as good as letting the fox loose in the henhouse -- the potential for abuse and profiteering is just too great to ignore. Get involved NOW folks. I didn't know about this until last night, and it knocked my socks off. People I've talked to think this is a universally bad thing, but they don't know how to stop it. I suggest that a million loud voices would have a significant impact. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/29/90)
Karl, there is a *much* simpler solution. Scrap NSFNet. We don't need it. T1 and 64K DDS lines are ***cheap*** these days, so cheap that UUNet can build a truly commercial TCP/IP service, give excellent service, and charge less than $2000/month for it. NSFNet is the government's network. Let them have it for anyone who wants to live under the government's terms and conditions. Just as the Europeans are throwing off the yokes of their PTTs, it's time for us to throw off the yoke of state-sponsored communications networks, and start building our own. <csg>
pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu (Paul Graham) (10/29/90)
karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: |There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the |NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the |Internet, into the hands of IBM. people who are *really* concerned about this should first subscribe to, and get the archives of, the commercialization/privitization mailing list (com-priv-requests@psi.com). this plan is generally well known in the networking community and while there is no clear consensus i don't think the degree of alarm displayed by the previous posting is necessary. in any event com-priv is an excellent place to move this discussion since many of the movers and shakers are active there. -- pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet) opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (10/29/90)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >This is a call to action by all interested parties. >There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the >NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the >Internet, into the hands of IBM. This is part of the disgusting Senator from my home state, Albert Gore, Sr as part of his supernet that will cure all the nation's technology ills, make is a world competator and brush our teeth, all in one fell swoop. He is being "assisted" by that "gentleman" we've all come to know and loathe, (bob?) Abernathy of the Houston Chronicle. Remember the Great Internet Smut Controversy of 1990. Yep, same guy. He posted to a mailing list the articles he wrote for the paper on the subject. I didn't keep an archive copy but here's what I remember: IBM and >>> Compuserv <<< have steped forward and volunteered to sink about 10 million into the management effort. They are proposing to institute a "user fee" schedule based on the quantity of data transmitted. BUT they still propose to keep the network "closed" and only available to those who have a "need" to be on there. In other words, enjoy the Internet while it lasts because will soon become a mutant offspring of an incestuous inbreeding of IBM, Compuserv, and the government. Can you imagine an ftp session that is billed by the hour and by the bytes transfered all the while, advertisements scroll across the screen? No smileys. As is typical of Gore, he proposed to dump buckets of money into the project and create a backbone of gigabit-per-second links that no one but the government could afford to interface to. He calls upon those old worn phrases of motherhood, apple pie, and another Apollo-like mission to the moon of networks. The articles that Abernathy writes glow so from yellow journalism that I feel that I need my cobalt glasses just to read them. Even as he promotes this grandois scheme, he executes a perfect self-pat-on-the back by noting that a "controversy" has grown out of the exclusive investigative article by the Chronicle. Then he uses the previous dose of yellow to justify a "remedy". And we know how the Democrats "remedy" a problem. At least our wallets do. Perhaps someone else on the list will post a couple of Abernathy's articles. What to do? As usual, make noise. Lobby for incremental funding to handle the growth of the internet, incremental funding for higher speed technologies and the creation of a mechanism for commercial users with research as opposed to business need to get on the net. Lobby for the congress to do that but otherwise leave what works alone. And hey, if anyone out there has enough money to buy a congresslime, then please do so. (and just in case Abernathy wants to quote me out of context.) This article is copyright 1990 John De Armond. All rights reserved. No journalistic use whatsoever permitted. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
palowoda@fiver (Bob Palowoda) (10/29/90)
From article <1990Oct28.220432.521@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger): > This is a call to action by all interested parties. > > There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the > NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the > Internet, into the hands of IBM. This is a very bad idea. For one the Internet, NFSFNet, and all the other local networks stand for something opposite of the corporate sturctures. Don't get me wrong I think IBM is a good company but they do not have a policy for controling goverment resources. > IBM has supposedly pledged to run this on a non-profit basis for some > number of years. Of course, the number that's being bandied about is > small, like "2"..... If what you mean by "run" as in IBM runs the networks. NO this cannot do. If they want to help why not give cash or equiptment donations to NSFNet just as any other large corporation (i.e. Xerox) would give to a public broadcasting station. > Anyone want to bet how long the Internet remains accessible to non-IBM > people? I believe IBM has thier own network(s). > Or whether the Internet ends up another Prodidy, with active > censorship? This also brings up a point of conflict in interest. > 3) Keep control in the hands of the many, or in the hands of a > non-profit corporation funded EXCLUSIVELY to run this beast. > Giving it to IBM or another pseudo-government company is as > good as letting the fox loose in the henhouse -- the > potential for abuse and profiteering is just too great to > ignore. I agree 100 percent. > Get involved NOW folks. I didn't know about this until last night, and it > knocked my socks off. People I've talked to think this is a universally bad > thing, but they don't know how to stop it. I suggest that a million loud > voices would have a significant impact. Is there any goverment email address we can write to about this? ---Bob -- Bob Palowoda palowoda@fiver | *Home of Fiver BBS* Home {sun}!ys2!fiver!palowoda | 415-623-8809 1200/2400 {pacbell}!indetech!fiver!palowoda | An XBBS System Work {sun,pyramid,decwrl}!megatest!palowoda| 415-623-8806 1200/2400/19.2k TB+
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/29/90)
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: }This is a call to action by all interested parties. }There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the }NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the }Internet, into the hands of IBM. .. }Anyone want to bet how long the Internet remains accessible to non-IBM }people? I'll take that bet --- I suspect this would never happen. ]Or whether the Internet ends up another Prodidy, with active }censorship? This is a possibility, but 'censorship' is a bit strong here. Fact is that we're using the network's comm resources for purposes quite a bit beyond the intent of the folks who chartered the thing. This is, sooner or later, going to come to a head: either the screws will be tightened, restricting the network to its narrowly-defined actual purposes [the case that you fear], or else some set of folk will manage to get the 'powers-that-be' [actually it is the 'powers-that-pay'] to acknowlegd the utility of the network in its broader uses. I, actually, think that the latter is fairly unlikely: as the gov't financial world gets more constrained, it will prove harder and harder to defend the somewhat amorphous 'general good' served by running the communications service, especially in the face of _concrete_ research projects having to be discontinued for lack of funds. Whether you'll have to buy an IBM system to hook into it, }since they might decide that TCP/IP is no longer any good and now it's }time to go to SNA or worse? This is spectacularly unlikely. If anything, TCP/IP will be abandoned in favor of ISO stacks, but even that is not going to happen any time soon. }Folks, if you love the Internet, and want to see it expand and grow, we need }to insure that a few things happen: }1) The "acceptable use" policy on the NSFNet needs to be scrapped. } Sure, this will bring problems. But it will also mean that } commercial companies can tie in, pay their fair share, and make sure } that the network capacity has the funding to continue to grow. What would you replace the policy with? I think that the NSF charter constrains their budget to be used as grants to further research. I'd bet that they can divert funds to running a communications service only as long as such a service more-or-less directly supports their research mandate. [I know that we had such a problem with ARPANET funding, way back when: when it became obvious that the ARPANET, per se, had become a communications service and not a subject of research in and of itself [indeed, if we did any real messing-around with the ARPANET we got near-instantaneous complaints from all over the world! :-)], ARPA got unhappy about funding it for precisely those two reasons: (1) it was beyond ARPA's mandate, and so would not withstand Congressional scrutiny, and (2) it preempted funds from other (real) research projects. The result was that the ARPANET operation was transferred to DCA,a nd eventually resulted in the ARPANET being decommitted entirely [the argument being that that sort of general comm facility was not an appropriate activity for the gov't to be running] }2) The backbone needs to be run as a regulated commodity. Perhaps even } run by the Government, strange as that may seem. The goal of } universal connectivity is not that far off right now, but there are } companies and special interests who would like to see that never } happen. We MUST insure that it does. I think you'll have a VERY hard time making a really rational case for this. There are commercial alternatives to the gov't-subsidized internet, and one might argue that there might well be more of 'em, and they'd be more economical, if the gov't weren't gigantically perturbing the market by making so much capacity available 'for free' [that is, 'paid for by someone else']. The easiest way to achieve your goal [of universial connectivity] is to be exploring ways to PAY for the sort of communications services you envision, rather than just thumping the drum that the gov't should provide it. }4) Finally, a freely accessible information exchange medium may be the } second-best guarantee of freedom in this country (the first being } the ability of the people to depose a despotic government). By } keeping the passing of information from coast to coast available, } fast and cheap, we keep the people informed. Granted. The only debate is the perennial one: WHO SHOULD PAY. Why not argue for a self-supporting communications service, instead of a taxpayer-supported one. The problem with the gov't-run solution is the obvious ones that crop up whenever you let the gov't run stuff: 1) if they pay for it, they'll expect to have some say about what it is used for. 2) if they pay for it, they'll make blanket rules about how it is glued together The problem with (2) is that (via the taxes we pay) we're all going to have to subsidize this communications facility even if it doesn't serve our purposes. As for (1), one need only look at the 55mph stuff and the DFWF extortion programs to see how overall nasty it can be to suckle at the gov't's teat. } 1) A tax on access devices for the network may be the best } way to fund it. I'm not sure about this, but it seems as } though a "user fee" is one of the better ways to pay for the } connectivity that we all enjoy and want to see furthered. If this is adequate to PAY for the network [I cannot imagine that it is --- do you have any clue how expensive the operating costs for something like this is?], why not simply have it be privately operated? Then the gov'ts opinion on what the net does, and what people send over it, becomes irrelevant. } 2) General subsidy isn't a bad idea either, but it's not ideal. } Selling it to the general public will be difficult, } especially with the things that hit the press now and again } about X-rated GIF sites and the like. Bingo. } 3) Keep control in the hands of the many, or in the hands of a } non-profit corporation funded EXCLUSIVELY to run this beast. } Giving it to IBM or another pseudo-government company is as } good as letting the fox loose in the henhouse -- the } potential for abuse and profiteering is just too great to } ignore. Perhaps. Going back to your original 'the sky is falling' cry, you only say "... into the hands of IBM". What does that mean? In the past, in the various networks that have contracted out to be 'run' [including the long-standing contract from ARPA, and later DCA, to BBN to operate the ARPANET and the MILNET, and one from NSF to operate the old CSNET] have been quite clear as to the responsibilites and prerogatives of the operations-entity. I cannot believe that NSF either would want, or would be legally allowed, to turn over the policy and planning of the NFSnet to IBM: the purpose of the network would still be as it was [to serve NSF's research interests] and only the NSF can evaluate and balance those purposes. It feels to me that you're doing two things here, neither of which serves us well: first is blowing the "danger" all out of proportion. Second, I think you're vastly underestimating just how much it costs to run one of these things. [and so you're being a bit cavalier at just how easy it would be to find enough money to make this 'non profit corp' to actually be able to pay its bills]. Instead of pushing for MORE gov't involvement in usenet, what is wrong with pushing for LESS: how about we eschew those 'free' govt-supplied links [which we really, probably, oughtn't have been using for rec.pets in the first place] and instead push to have more "pay for play" links? If we make our own communications arrangments [which could include using Telenet, or even, as you suggest, starting some kind of non-profit corp to provide some kind of backbone facilities], in addition to getting the connectivity you want, we have two BIG other advantages: (1) we don't have to keep groveling before Congress for funds, and (2) we don't have to duck reporters. /Bernie\
cluther@supernet.haus.com (Clay Luther) (10/30/90)
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >Karl, there is a *much* simpler solution. Scrap NSFNet. We don't need it. T1 >and 64K DDS lines are ***cheap*** these days, so cheap that UUNet can build >a truly commercial TCP/IP service, give excellent service, and charge less >than $2000/month for it. ><csg> Since when was $2000/month cheap? This is more than most people in the US make in a month! $2000/month is in no way cheap, with triple astericks. It is well out of the reach of the common man and beyond the means of many small companies that would profit greatly by having internet access. Internet will not be cheap until it drops to say, $100/month, or less. -- Clay Luther, Postmaster cluther@supernet.haus.com postmaster@supernet.haus.com clay.luther@supernet.haus.com Harris Adacom Corporation MS 23, PO Box 809022, Dallas, Tx 75380-9022 214/386-2356 Your mileage may vary. Void where prohibited.
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (10/30/90)
I don't think that eveyone needs to scrap the NSFNet right now, especially since it is free. What we need to consider are several levels of service/capabilities/restrictions in the US and Internationally. For those organizations willing to abide by the restrictions let them have the academic regionals and NSFNet. For those who don't let them leave and migrated to TYMNET, TELENET, ALTERNET, PSINET, and XYZNet. Of course in october 92 when the NSFNet funding is finished there will probably be even more choices. Because as a good friend of mine said once: who can compete with free? Marty ------------------ >Karl, there is a *much* simpler solution. Scrap NSFNet. We don't need it. T1 >and 64K DDS lines are ***cheap*** these days, so cheap that UUNet can build >a truly commercial TCP/IP service, give excellent service, and charge less >than $2000/month for it. > >NSFNet is the government's network. Let them have it for anyone who wants to >live under the government's terms and conditions. Just as the Europeans are >throwing off the yokes of their PTTs, it's time for us to throw off the yoke >of state-sponsored communications networks, and start building our own.
schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) (10/30/90)
> > Is there any goverment email address we can write to about this? > >---Bob You can start with steve@note.nsf.gov who is responsible for "infrastructure", but as pointed out in another posting, com-priv@psi.com is where this is being discussed in depth, and both the government and the participants are all at least watching. Marty
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct28.220432.521@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >This is a call to action by all interested parties. > >There is wind of a proposal stirring in Washington that would place the >NSFNet backbone, and eventually the entire government-run part of the >Internet, into the hands of IBM. It would seem to me, in the absence of *much* more detailed information, that this is just so much conspiracy theory. >Anyone want to bet how long the Internet remains accessible to non-IBM >people? Or whether the Internet ends up another Prodidy, with active >censorship? Whether you'll have to buy an IBM system to hook into it, >since they might decide that TCP/IP is no longer any good and now it's >time to go to SNA or worse? Assuming that IBM has made such a proposal, why should they spend money to turn something working in to something that doesn't work? Not that I think that IBM has turned out many good products over the years, but they don't exist solely to torture computer programmers--they're actually trying to make a buck. Quite a few, in fact. The principal reason why IBM would volunteer to run the NFSNet, etc would be to enhance their standing in the academic technical community. This would encourage them to do a good job--the 'net' community is not one that is easily swayed by appealing to a CEO or two. <Karl goes on to propose that the net be turned into a government thing, paid for like roads. Let's hope nobody gets to send their packets over the Mianus River bridge.> >Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) >Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 808-7300], Voice: [+1 708 808-7200] >Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" P.S. I know people who love Prodigy--just because it can give them a stock quote quickly. As for the active censorship, it seems from reports that they are a bit touchy about criticism. However, any company with "deep pockets" who does not actively censor a bbs service is a bunch of fools--there are simply too many people willing to file a civil suit or criminal charges over all sorts of nonsense. -- Craig Jackson dricejb@drilex.dri.mgh.com {bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}
jordan@Morgan.COM (Jordan Hayes) (10/31/90)
Clay Luther <cluther@supernet.haus.com> writes:
Since when was $2000/month cheap?
Since when have you priced Internet access?
PSI charges $60k/year for T1.
I'm sure most of the other ones are similar.
/jordancsg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/31/90)
>I don't think that eveyone needs to scrap the NSFNet right now, especially >since it is free. Beg yer pardon? That's for Universities. Doesn't NSFNet charge something like $5000/month just in fees, not including network equipment costs? <csg>
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (10/31/90)
>Since when was $2000/month cheap?
We were talking about NFSNet. Your "common man" can't connect to it at all.
If you're talking about 1.544Mbps worldwide TCP/IP connections, with routing,
nameservice, and network administration all done for you, $2000 per month is
very cheap. And the price will continue to drop.
On-the-order-of $100 per month Internet access is out there, too. Isn't that
what PSI is doing? But you aren't going to support a supercomputer or several
hundred sessions off that.
<csg>mra@srchtec.UUCP (Michael Almond) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct29.205244.2051@supernet.haus.com> cluther@supernet.haus.com (Clay Luther) writes: >csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >>and 64K DDS lines are ***cheap*** these days, so cheap that UUNet can build >>a truly commercial TCP/IP service, give excellent service, and charge less >>than $2000/month for it. >Internet will not be cheap until it drops to say, $100/month, or less. Well I don't know when the price will drop to $100/month, but you can get Internet access at $250/month, which isn't bad. We here at Search are planning to join the Internet through PSINet. They charge $250/month for dialup SLIP, I think eventually they'll have ISO once it is stable. With a NetBlazer at your sight, it is almost as good as a dedicated line connection. As time goes by the prices of the hardware will drop an maybe we'll reach the $100/month mark. --- Michael R. Almond mra@srchtec.uucp (registered) search technology, inc. emory!stiatl!srchtec!mra Atlanta, Georgia (404) 441-1457 (office) .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. Georgia Tech Alumnus .'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.
jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (10/31/90)
dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: >It would seem to me, in the absence of *much* more detailed information, >that this is just so much conspiracy theory. Well Senate Bill 1976 may be a conspiracy but is a damn threatening one. Read my previous post to see how theory is reduced to practice. >Assuming that IBM has made such a proposal, why should they spend money >to turn something working in to something that doesn't work? You ever used IBM products? If you have, how can you ask that question? >they're actually trying to make a buck. Quite a few, in fact. Precicely. Which has NOTHING to do with our being able to actually USE what they provide for us. Witness, the PC Jr. Or any Series/1. Etc. >The principal reason why IBM would volunteer to run the NFSNet, etc would >be to enhance their standing in the academic technical community. No, according to IBM's news release, they will be in it along with Compu$erve and McGraw-Hill and others STRICTLY to make a buck. ><Karl goes on to propose that the net be turned into a government thing, >paid for like roads. Let's hope nobody gets to send their packets over >the Mianus River bridge.> No, I hope the net turns into something like the Interstate system here in Atlanta. Here, the goverment (more or less) builds enough roads to keep up with growth. I can hit I-75 (a 10 lane interstate), get onto the perimeter I-285 (another 10 lane interstate) and be 30 miles across town in not much more than 30 minutes. Yes, it does congest during times of high usage but it is also one of the main fuelers of growth in the metro area. A properly designed and managed FREE data highway could do the same thing on a national basis. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
e85rw@efd.lth.se (Ricard Wolf) (10/31/90)
In article <4562@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: ... >>Assuming that IBM has made such a proposal, why should they spend money >>to turn something working in to something that doesn't work? > >You ever used IBM products? If you have, how can you ask that question? :-) :-) :-) >>they're actually trying to make a buck. Quite a few, in fact. > >Precicely. Which has NOTHING to do with our being able to actually >USE what they provide for us. Witness, the PC Jr. Or any Series/1. >Etc. > >>The principal reason why IBM would volunteer to run the NFSNet, etc would >>be to enhance their standing in the academic technical community. > >No, according to IBM's news release, they will be in it along with >Compu$erve and McGraw-Hill and others STRICTLY to make a buck. EXACTLY!!!!! Please remember that IBM is not interested in making anything else but money! If the machine works, it's an added bonus, but not really part of the specification :-) :-). If they could have made money marketing peas they would have done so ("oh, you want a container to transport the peas home in? well that is an optional extra"). -- Ricard Wolf +--------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Ricard Wolf | Lund Institute of Technology | | email: e85rw@efd.lth.se | If you can't buy 'em - build 'em !! | +--------------------------+-------------------------------------+
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (11/01/90)
In article <1990Oct31.081304.14531@lth.se>, e85rw@efd.lth.se (Ricard Wolf) writes: > EXACTLY!!!!! Please remember that IBM is not interested in making > anything else but money! If the machine works, it's an added bonus, but not > really part of the specification :-) :-). If they could have made money > marketing peas they would have done so ("oh, you want a container to transport > the peas home in? well that is an optional extra"). The government would be much less responsive. At least if you needed a container from IBM or whomever you could get one. With the government running things you might get a container if you could prove that everyone needed one and then only after the peas had spoilt. Things work well because we have a org that is not keeping a strick close eye on things. With the budget in the shambles that it is in, do you really think that the US government is not going to take a much more active role in the who/what/when/where of the network? Is this really what you all want? -- Kurt Baumann InterCon Systems Corporation 703.709.9890 Creators of fine TCP/IP products 703.709.9896 FAX for the Macintosh.
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (11/03/90)
In <1990Oct29.205244.2051@supernet.haus.com> cluther@supernet.haus.com (Clay Luther) writes: >Internet will not be cheap until it drops to say, $100/month, or less. I fail to see why it should be any more than about $1.50 per month, plus communications costs. You don't need $100/month for storing a password entry. The only significant cost should be for communications. While we're on the subject, the whole idea of requiring some sort of leased line for Internet access is all wrong. In this age of Trailblazers, low-volume access to a network shouldn't need to cost more than $30/hour after hours plus $1.50 per month for maintaining the account. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi A pointer is not an address. It is a way of finding an address. -- me
clarke@acheron.uucp (Ed Clarke/10240000) (11/03/90)
From article <2650@cirrusl.UUCP>, by dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi): - While we're on the subject, the whole idea of requiring some sort of - leased line for Internet access is all wrong. In this age of - Trailblazers, low-volume access to a network shouldn't need to cost - more than $30/hour after hours plus $1.50 per month for maintaining the - account. PSInet charges $250/month, flat fee using local phone numbers. There are no additional charges for packet or connect time. If you think that you will use internet access more than eight hours at your $30/hr, then you have access right now. Call 1.800.82PSI82 (blech!) to get more info. They support PPP (RFC 1171 asynch), SLIP (RFC 1055) and X.25/IP. I just got the add yesterday ... -- | "Pain, n. An uncomfortable frame of mind that may have Ed Clarke | a physical basis in something that is being done to the acheron!clarke | body, or may be purely mental, caused by the good fortune | of another." - Ambrose Bierce