Re: FYI: Someone wants to build a monopoly.

	 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