At 10:16 AM 5/25/99 , Karl Auerbach wrote:
>I certainly find it hard to justify allowing NSI to retain its unfair
>advantage on the basis that after a great deal of investment and work, a
>big competitor may possibly, maybe arise.
Unfair? It was NSI's risk, investment, and entrepreneurship
over the past six years that built their segment of the
business. They've agreed and are proceeding rapidly to
open most of that segment up to 5, then 29, then other
companies to harvest the market segment that they built.
Frankly, I regard that as unfair - but they're actually
doing it anyhow in the belief that a rising tide raises all
ships.
When the various NSFNet cooperative agreements were terminated,
I didn't see MCI-IBM, Sprint, and the regionals (now largely
Verio), give up their networks, addresses, intellectual property
and customer bases in a spirit of largesse emanating from the
"unfairness" of their market segments. They walked with billions
in assets and revenue streams.
Maybe we want to list all the several thousand companies and
institutions that received NSF awards and agreements, figure
out what that's worth, and ex post facto divvy up their assets
in a grand spirit of fairness.
--tony
