[11981] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
VBNS, NSF and Commercial Use/ My apologies; ist tramsmission of this had final 50 lines truncated!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Thu Apr 28 19:34:40 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 1994 20:54:39 GMT
To: com-priv@psi.com
An article from the May 1994 COOK Report
OFFEROR'S JUNE 1993 QUESTIONS ON VBNS COMMERCIAL USE NOT
ANSWERED BY NSF
ALSO - NSF RESPONSES TO FOIAS SHOW NO COST SHARING DATA, NO
SUPPORT FOR WOLFF'S ASSERTION ON COMMERCIAL USE AUTHORITY,
& NO DATA FOR AUDITS OF ANS COMPLIANCE WITH PRIOR
COMMERCIAL USE REQUIREMENTS
Unwarranted
Commercial Use Give Away Could Torpedo vBNS
We believe that the National Science Foundation is now caught
between the proverbial rock and the hard place, thanks to its
unwarranted insistence on granting MCI commercial use of the vBNS.
It appears to us that the NSF has decided to allow MCI commercial
resale of the vBNS (155 mega bit per second backbone) without
adequate justification. For under FOIA, the Foundation now admits
that the justification that Steve Wolff gave to the com-priv mail list
on 12/29/93 turned out to have no legal support from anywhere
else within the foundation. (See April 94 COOK Report, p. 11)
NSF Non Responsive to Offeror's Questions
A major problem with the commercial use sweetener is lack of
oversight capability by NSF. A representative of a regional network
recently asked us: "What is to prevent entities that buy commercial
use of the vBNS from being able to use these channels to talk to each
other rather than to the supercomputer centers?" Under such
conditions it is easy to imagine commercial sales to companies that
really want to talk to each other or to the universities that NSF will
be connecting, rather than the supercomputer centers.
Based on the past lack of audit or enforcement imposed on
MCI/IBM/ANS for commercial use of the previous backbone, is there
any reason to anticipate that any of the conditions imposed this time
by NSF will be enforced by the foundation in its relationship with
what turns out to be the same set of earlier partners on the new
vBNS?
Earlier this year, we requested by FOIA details of NSF audits of
MERIT and ANS - audits which would provide public assurance that
Merit and ANS are complying with the requirements of Sept. 10
1990 and May 24 1991. The NSF has responded that it has no such
documents. The more cynical among us probably find themselves
tempted to ask: If NSF has done nothing to verify compliance with
the last sweetheart deal, why should we expect it to do so now? We
also asked for evidence of what cost sharing MCI had promised in
return for this new round of benefits. The FOIA response three
weeks ago was "no documents responsive to your request have been
found."
Under these circumstances the use of public money to set up MCI in
a commercial ATM business that MCI has not yet chosen to use its
own profits to do for itself is offensive. It is especially so when the
government is essentially paying the start up costs for MCI to begin
to offer the same commercial services already available from MCI's
rival Sprint. Sprint of course has filed a protest of the Foundation's
actions with GAO. And Congressman Conyers is leveling questions at
NSF and ordering it to answer by the close of business today.
NSF Refuses to Answer
Questions on Commercial Use
Some of the roots of these developments extend back to May of
1993, when, in writing, we asked the NSF to clarify what its
commercial use and cost sharing policies for the vBNS would be. So
did Ameritech, Advantis, Bellcore, and NCAR.
The NSF choose to ignore these critical questions. It provided no
answers. Why? NSF knew this would be controversial. Why then
was its intent to grant MCI commercial use so critical to its game
plan? Why would MCI and its sub-contractor ANS once more seem
to want to be rewarded for what it bid with commercial use? This is
supposed to be a small market - why the insistence on the part of all
parties on commercial use? And why Steve's heavy emphasis on it
with Ellen Messmer?
If Sprint wins its protest we believe it will be on the grounds of NSF's
unwarranted grant of commercial use to MCI.-for whom $50 million
over five years apparently wasn't enough compensation. If MCI is
really serious about the research involved, why the insistence on the
extra commercial use sweetener?
The Unanswered
Commercial Use
Questions
Bellcore: "in many places in the solicitation, the vBNS is described as
supporting 'meritorious high bandwidth network applications.' The
implication from these statements could be that the vBNS will only
be used in research applications requiring experimental high
bandwidth networking capabilities. However, in the background
section the solicitation states that 'any traffic which is in support of
research and education will be permitted on the vBNS.' This quote
could imply that it would be acceptable for all the research and
education traffic on the current NSFnet to flow over the vBNS even
though the preponderance of that traffic may not be high bandwidth
applications requiring high bandwidth network capabilities. What if
any restrictions on access and/or usage will be imposed on the vBNS?
What mechanism will be used to enforce this policy? Will such
mechanisms be a part of the final criteria for vBNS selection?"
The National Center for Atmospheric Research asked: "What does the
Foundation consider to be legitimate industry traffic on the vBNS and
how is it to be identified (tagged)?" Also "around what parameters
would the Foundation like to see corporate support and cost sharing
issues addressed in the program solicitation (e.g. cash, personnel,
equipment)?"
Advantis, the Sears IBM network outsourcing giant, asked: "Given
that the purpose of the RFP is to upgrade the NSFnet and NREN is for
R&E only, does this mean that usage Guidelines will be less
restrictive, the same, or more restrictive than the NSFnet today?"
And in a question particularly relevant to IBM as a co-awardee of
the second routing arbiter project, "the RFP calls for the Routing
arbitrator to supply the routing servers. If the routing server is
viewed as an integral part of the actual routers, does this mean that
the Routing Arbitrator awardee will be providing all the routers for
the NAPs and vBNS?"
Finally Ameritech asked: "the solicitation states that the "vBNS may
have connections and customers beyond those specified by the NSF
provided that the quality and quantity of required services for NSF
specified customers are not affected." What is the measure of quality
and quantity?" [We omitt our own questions on these subjects since
we published them last July.]
NSF Answered All "Substantive" Questions
Last November 30 Steve Wolff answered a series of questions put to
him by Joe Stroup, a vocal critic of NSF on the com-priv list. On the
same day Stroup sent Wolff's answer on to us. One question and
answer is quite relevant: Stroup: "5. When questions are submitted
by one of the bidders, are they in turn sent out with both questions
and NSF answers to the others who bid ?" Wolff: "After the closing
date for questions, we summarized all the substantive questions and
mailed them with our responses to all those who had requested a
copy of the solicitation." [Used with Joe Stroup's explicit written
permission.]
Wolff's statement that he answered all substantive questions mirrors
the language used by NSF in the release of its original answers in
June 1993. "Enclosed is a summary of the substantive questions
received. . ." The NSF's final two answers (question 66 and 67) were
to questions asking the identity of the current NSFnet Information
Services Manager and the current architecture of the Internet!
Evidently the NSF judged these to be substantive and the questions
above on cost sharing and commercial use not to be! Remarkable!
**How then could NSF have possibly considered questions on
commercial use as non substantive?**
Now real bids were prepared by real corporations who were left in
the dark, since we may reasonably assume that NSF didn't get the
inspiration to offer MCI commercial use for the first time during his
mid February 1994 interview with Ellen Messmer. Given how ANS
and ANS CO+RE were formed in conjunction with the NSF's earlier
undocumented and unreviewed grant of commercial use, and given
the NSF Inspector General's sharp criticism of DNCRI's operation for
this action, we are surprised to find what could be seen by some as
an attempt to carry off another sleight-of-hand grant of commercial
use three years later. In view of this past history, it was critical to
the execution of a fair competition that questions on commercial use
be answered and **yet they were not.** We'd like to know why.
Furthermore Steve Wolff, in com-priv on Dec 29, 1993, asserted that
he has authorization from Congress via the Boucher amendment for
his approval of commercial use. Unfortunately for such an assertion,
when we asked by FOIA whether there was any document anywhere
in the foundation supporting Steve's interpretation, the response
was **no.** We doubt that he can claim any such Congressional
authorization for not answering commercial use questions of
prospective offerors.
_____________________________________________________________
_________
Gordon Cook, Editor Publisher: COOK Report on Internet -> NREN
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618
cook@path.net (609) 882-2572
Subscriptions: $500 corporate site license; $175 educational & non
prof., $85 individ.
_____________________________________________________________
_________
