|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 16:28:42 -0700 To: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.sf.ca.us>, com-priv@psi.com From: kwe@cerf.net (Kent W. England) At 4:18 PM 4/14/94 -0700, Brock N. Meeks wrote: > >When NSF announced it had awarded MCI the rights to run its vBNS, the >user community was outraged. That ire stemmed from the fact that MCI >was co-founder of current NSFNet provider, Advanced Network & Services >(ANS), which has been heavily criticized for its mismanagement of that >network. Further, MCI was seen by industry experts as technologically >inferior to at least 2 other bidders, AT&T and Sprint. Both of those >companies have viable ATM technology, with Sprint being the only >company in the country running a commercial ATM network. MCI has no >such technology and has refused to talk about its future ATM plans. >ATM is a complex technology that is widely regarded as the engine for >the emerging information superhighway. > Brock; The NSF can not use industry expert commentary as a basis for decision-making. What they had were proposals from the above mentioned players and an expert review panel to review those proposals. That is the basis for decision making. Those are the rules. Every bidder knows this upfront. --Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |