> 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.
Hey, it sounds like a lot of work for lawyers and consultants. I like that
idea! (just kidding folks).
>
>
>
>
> --tony
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Travel-Net Web Mail.
http://www.travel-net.com/
