[12303] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: NSF Response to Conyers - FYI
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Sun May 15 06:49:36 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 20:30:00 GMT
Apparently-To: <com-priv@psi.com>
I found the remark that there was one bid that was substantially lower
that the MCI bid very interesting. Remember my assertions about hearing
the same rumor from 6 or 7 DIFFERENT sources that AT&T bid zero..... and
someone else later told me that AT&T's bid was not without some cost to
the gov't.....ie.....looks like at&t wanted it soooo badly they were
willing to do the jjob virtually for free? Well to find out that
AT&T's proposaL WAS JUDGED to be technically unacceptable is something
of a shocker!!!
Seemsw to imply that either NSF did an incredibly BAD job of explaining
what they wanted or that AT&T's ability to understand the technical
issues behind the development of TCP/IP over high speed ATM links is
lacking in a very shocking way! AT&T is a big company with a lot of
talent.....to think they couldn't put together a prop in this aea that
would be rated as technically responsive is to me rather amazing.....
Why am I so sure the statement refers to AT&T? Because I find it
difficult to believe that sprint would protest the award if ITS Prop
had been rated as technically unacceptable! And because of the
large number of people who believed that AT&T offred an incredibly LOW
price!
Do I know with 100% certainty that AT&T's bid was the technically
unacceptable one? No. Can I deduce that it appears to have been
highly likely to have been? Yes.
Would sure be fascinating to see the prop in question.
It's late in Moscow..... It has been a week since I looked at com-priv
and may be abefore I am back for another glance.
