Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!decwrl!ucbvax!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!RAY
From: RAY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Ray Hirschfeld)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Is there a path from BITNET to Compuserve?
Message-ID: <370440.880504.RAY@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: 4 May 88 13:00:33 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 29
Approved: telecom@xx.lcs.mit.edu


    Date: 30 Apr 88 19:44:37 GMT
    From: mdf at tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark D. Freeman)
    Reply-To: mdf at tut.cis.osu-state.edu (Mark D. Freeman)
    To:   TELECOM at MIT-MC
    Re:   Is there a path from BITNET to Compuserve?
    ...
    So, there is no link between CompuServe and BITNET.  It seems to me
    like the problem keeping that link from being created is insoluble.

Maybe not.  After all, there is a link between MCImail and the
internet.  The billing is simple:  mail from MCImail to the internet
is charged the usual fee; mail from the internet to MCImail is free.

I don't know how it's REALLY paid for--for all I know the DoD pays MCI
a fee for the connection.  The link is supposed to be used only for
official correspondence, but I don't know whether the definition of
"official" is any more stringent than that required for use of the
ARPAnet in the first place.

It seems possible that MCI provides this service at no charge.  The
link provides revenues from outgoing messages that otherwise could not
be sent, and the marginal cost of handling incoming messages might
very well be small.  If so, CompuServe could profit from the same sort
of arrangement.

				Ray

P.S.  The reply-to: field in your message is incorrect.