Re: FYI: Someone wants to build a monopoly.
- Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 10:26:33 +0200
It is proposed that the OU should in the context of the Multiprotocol
Backbone Service (MPBS) offer three different types of access:
It is clear that the OU and the discussion around it does not recognize
the difference between a service provider and a service contractor.
Somehow it seems like the OU could have influence other through a contract
on the EBONE service provision.
The EBONE service should in my opinion be a separate entity, where
a strong bound between the owners of the network service components
will have to improve the technical issues, and possibly the financial
situation through a company establishment?
The RARE OU could, on behalf of the users (where they now are put)
specify the service needs, and prepare a contract situation with EBONE.
I see the trend to build these two functions into the same structure
- the OU, which is a bad mistake.
--mats
PS
I am not saying anything about the need for the open structure to
allow for routing arbitration for ALL providers et c...)
DS