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.