Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!UNCCVM!ACC00RRB From: ACC00RRB@UNCCVM.BITNET (Robert R. Blackmun) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal Message-ID: Date: 7 Feb 90 14:46:13 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 26 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway Comments: cc: FUTURE-L In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 6 Feb 90 11:04:58 EST from On Tue, 6 Feb 90 11:04:58 EST Lee C. Varian said: > >We would suggest that discussion of this proposal be carried out on the >NODMGT-L list. > Although it is certainly appropriate for the technical details of the proposed restructuring to be discussed on the NODMGT-L list, I think there are related issues that are appropriate for POLICY-L and/or FUTURE-L: 1. Given that one of Bitnet's objectives is to remain independent of "external" control, funding, etc., is it appropriate to adopt a hierarchical network strategy when the strategy is based on using a national backbone provide by someone else (NSFNet)? 2. Since it's generally understood that NSFNet/NREN will eventually become "self supporting" (as the mid-level regional networks sponsored by NSF are expected to do shortly), how do the economics of Bitnet II appear (and compare to NSFNet and mid-levels)? 3. Since some people believe very strongly that one of the distinct advantages of Bitnet has been the absence of traffic-based charges (which are widely recognized as barriers to development of use of the network for scholarly activities), how will the restructuring affect costs and charges in the future (when use of the IP backbone is no longer "free" and may be subject to traffic-based charges).