[159928] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Radabaugh)
Tue Jan 29 11:28:51 2013
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:29:25 -0500
From: Mark Radabaugh <mark@amplex.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5107C40B.5000501@gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/29/13 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> On 1/29/13 1:20 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>> [...] the US Federal government:
>>
>> (A) ...cannot do a darn thing without MASSIVE graft & corruption... plus
>> massive overruns in costs... including a HEAVY dose of "crony
>> capitalism" where, often, the companies who get the contracts are the
>> ones who pad the wallets of the politicians in charge. [...]
>>
> Ummm, this isn't true. As all of us old enough to remember know, the
> ILECs promised that with *REDUCED* regulation they'd roll out
> universal broadband IFF they were given the revenues from DSL --
> putting the CLECs and small ISPs out of the broadband business.
>
> The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal
> government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.
>
>
The other big problem with putting the government in charge is that it
creates too 'big' of a project. Every large contractor wants a piece
of it, every vendor wants a part, and the end result is a specification
that is expensive and difficult to build. Then the bidding process to
build/supply it starts and takes 3 years plus the 5 years for the
lawsuits from everyone who didn't win. By now the specification is well
out of date but we start building it anyway. Yeah - it's built. But we
need to upgrade it.... Repeat the above.
Don't believe it? Take a look at a much smaller Federal system - Air
Traffic Control and the attempts to upgrade that system.
Why would "Federal Internet" be any different?
--
Mark Radabaugh
Amplex
mark@amplex.net 419.837.5015
