Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!PUCC!LVARIAN From: LVARIAN@PUCC.BITNET (Lee C. Varian) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.policy-l Subject: Re: BITNET Restructuring Proposal Message-ID: Date: 8 Feb 90 15:54:50 GMT Sender: Discussion about BITNET policies Reply-To: Discussion about BITNET policies Lines: 13 Approved: NETNEWS@PSUVM Gateway In-Reply-To: Message of Thu, 8 Feb 90 10:36:00 EST from Mark, I think your point about CREN having early input to the NSFnet is a good one (and I think it will happen almost automatically since several of the CREN Board members are also on various advisory panels of the NSF involved with networking). Also, there are options other than secession which might be available even if the NSFnet went to usage-sensitive pricing (such as CREN buying some bandwidth-limited or packet-limited service from the NSFnet), so as to continue the BITNET tradition of usage-INsensitive fees to its member institutions. In effect, BITNET's original 9600 baud network was exactly such a bandwidth-limited service with usage-insensitive fees. Lee Varian, lvarian@pucc.princeton.edu Princeton University