At 09:00 PM 5/25/99 -0400, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
I can speak first hand that charging was discussed, the
>amount considered, and the implementation urged waaaay
>before NSI raised the issue in 1995.
And, of course, all this distracts nicely from rather more substantive
points that were raised. In case those with millisecond spans of attention
have forgotten:
At 10:48 AM 5/25/99 -0700, 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
>
>What risk -- NSI had a cost+fee contract. That means zero risk,
>guaranteed income.
>
>NSI didn't request a change the payment formula until it was obvious to
>everyone that they would obtain a monopoly on a revenue stream the size of
>the Mississippi.
>
>What investment -- NSI had a cost+fee contract. What you call investment
>I call costs, for which they obtained full reimbursed by the government.
>
>Moreover, some of those costs were for long term items -- like real
>estate, which would have significant value long after NSI's contract
>ended. Sure, to the extent that those costs weren't covered, NSI can keep
>its land and offices.
>
>NSI didn't spend any substantial sums until Amendment #4, which one should
>remember was done at NSI's reuqest, when it was obvious that NSI would
>obtain the monopoly on what was then the Internet's biggest money river.
>
>What entrapreneurship? -- I know real many entrapreaneaurs. NSI is not
>among them. NSI was just a aerospace-like, beltway bandit that happened
>to find a government agency willing to pay them $10,000 for a toilet seat.
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]>
