Dave,
At 09:06 AM 5/25/99 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 10:54 AM 5/25/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
>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
>
>NSI had no risk and made no entrepreneurial investment.
>
>By the time they finally decided to treat this as a real business, they had
>a massive, government-protected revenue stream, with fees set to be 3-7
>times too high.
>
>This extra money provided all the investment funds.
>
>NSI did not go out and create a business plan, acquire investment money and
>then try to create a new business. THAT is entrepreneurialism, Tony. (You
>should try it sometime; it's quite exciting and rewarding.)
>
>What NSI has done is to feed at the government trough. And they did it
>based on an existing service built by others. They can't even take the
>credit for creating the service they now profit from.
Dave, you don't know what you're talking about. The "existing service" you
keep talking about barely existed at all. When NSI was awarded the DDN
contract for domain and IP registration back in 1991 there may have been a
dozen requests for domains every week at most and those had to initially
be manually processed because no automated system existed. There were two
staff members working domain registration and initially they didn't have
enough work to keep them busy. The incomplete database that was handed to
NSI from SRI was totally screwed up. The two engineers on staff worked day
and night for weeks to get it in working condition. That you would even
try to compare the service requirements between 1991 and now is laughable.
In 1993, NSI was awarded the InterNIC RS contract and domain registrations
went through the roof, however, it was a good two years of some NSI staff
working 18 hour days to manage the load before NSI was told to begin
charging. If it hadn't been for SAIC buying NSI and pumping millions of
dollars into the InterNIC (before the charging began) to upgrade the
systems I don't know what would've happened because NSF wasn't about to do
it and NSI didn't have the money.
Yes, NSI has been able to make up financially for all of that but I am sick
and tired of you making it sound like the whole experience was a walk in
the park and that NSI contributed nothing. NSI and its staff have paid
their dues and they deserve at least a modicum of respect and credit.
Kim Hubbard
>
>>When the various NSFNet cooperative agreements were terminated,
>>I didn't see MCI-IBM, Sprint, and the regionals (now largely
>
>However, you DID see these other companies CREATE their
>infrastructure. NSI did not do that. It took over a service that had been
>running for EIGHT YEARS.
>
>So if you insist on being a continuing apologist for NSI, Tony, try to
>cover the facts better. (Sure is amazing that although you take money from
>NSI, its doesn't affect your opinion of them but that you just happen to
>think so highly of them.)
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
