Hello Al, Thank you for responding to my note.

I am responding to your note to Al Weis regarding the exchange of commercial traffic between ANS and NEARnet. The short answer to your question is no, ANS will not accept commercial (CO) traffic generated by an attached network under the Connectivity Agreement. There is a Gateway agreement that can be signed whereby ANS and the attached network exchange CO traffic.

Understood.

The thread of your question implies that the infrastructure of NEARnet and that of ANSnet are symmetrical.

I don't think so. I asked for a fair and equitable arrangement, which does not necessarily imply symmetry.

Providing national backbone services as well as direct attachments and gateways positions ANSnet within a different economic and operational structure. The scale of our operational and other commitments does not allow ANSnet to provide transit services in exchange for the delivery of CO traffic being accepted by NEARnet.

I agree that the cost of leased lines is related to the length of the line. I also understand that the costs of field service, sales and other customer-related activities are greater in a national effort versus a regional effort. However, the costs of these activities are very real for a regional network. The problem I have with your stated position is that the costs a regional incurs in providing its infrastructure are not recognized by the terms of your proposed agreement. To reiterate, I do not consider them to be fair and equitable. I believe, however, that cost of providing service is not the only issue to be considered. I believe that a most important parameter in the equation is the number of connections a network brings. As we already have access to the NSFnet, what you are offering NEARnet is access to Dialog. What you want is access to 115 of New England's premier research and educational institutions. Please do not misinterpret me - some of NEARnet's clients have expressed an interest in access to Dialog. I am actively considering whether ANSnet is the best way to provide that service to them. On another note, ANS now finds itself in a competitive position. As the manager of a regional network, I must consider the value of competing options to determine the best option for NEARnet to offer to its members. Some of the criteria I am considering are: * Quality of service provided by the vendor * Responsiveness of vendor * Cost of service * Richness of connectivity (i.e. # of connections) * Terms of contract Your salesman and I will once again be sitting down tommorrow to discuss ANSnet as an option for NEARnet. I intend to negotiate with him in good faith for the benefit of NEARnet's membership. Now, let me say in closing that the reason that I have brought my thoughts on these topics to this public forum is that I objected to Al Weis' characterization of the connectivity agreement. I have made my objections clear to this audience. Absent of similar grandstanding in the future, I now intend to close this public discussion. Thank you for making your position clear and for answering my question. - John M. Rugo NEARnet Business Manager Bolt Beranek and Newman