> Last time this term came up, I opined that there was no "backbone" any more
> and that 1996's Internet had a "hairball topology." Vadim, among others,
> disagreed with me but we didn't pursue the topic. Perhaps we should have.
> "backbone provider" used synonomously with "NSP" (as defined above).
I think it should be NSP.They have National Netowrks, we have
State wide netowrks. Simple.
Regardless of whatever terminology is eventually decided here, it won't make
a damn bit of difference anywhere else...unless we subscribe to Dillon's idea
of releasing Press Releases (which I do not suggest).
I think we have enough terms to understand each other. We have backbones,
NSP's, the default-less core, a core provider, ... and we have ISPs, IAPs,
Content Providers, ... and we have Online Service Providers, ... and we
have a whole bunch of other people who are doing things on the 'net that
don't deserve to be called any of those things.
We know who belongs in these groups, and who does not.
What the general public believes is up to those that do the marketing. ...
and those that bother to educate, may win in the end (maybe not if they are
spending their time arguing it here rather than where it counts).