[12528] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Dismissed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph W. Stroup)
Fri May 20 10:13:14 1994
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 09:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
To: Rick Adams <rick@uunet.uu.net>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9405180027.AA10879@kong.UU.NET>
Thats a good question/comment. NSF is allowed to issue a cooperative
agreement or a contract. NSF is the one who decides what mode they will
operate in. Steve Wolff sent me mail to the effect that there were
options. If there were options when were they exercised ? I am sure that
NSF will say - well when the sol. was issued. NSF claims to have answered
all substantive questions including the one you asked. I guess in their
opinion it was not substantive. Again the time for a portest would be
when they failed to answer the questions put to them. Clearly people in
the know would say that failure to answer looks like the NSF just did not
want to address the situation your question brings up.
After reading over the decision I find that it is FLAWED. I also have
serious questions about the ability of the GAO to understand what it is
that they were asked to rule on. Anyone can through out citations and
thats just what happened. The government, NOT Sprint makes the statement
about MCI's development of an automatic teller network. Sure proves a
clear understanding of the issues at hand. Give MCI 50 million dollars
and they install an ATM system, that way the lawyers at GAO can withdraw
or make deposits to their accounts during lunch. I for one am very
interested to see how the teller machines work. Do they dispense IP
packets , cash or script ? There could still be hope yet.
Joseph Stroup
On Tue, 17 May 1994, Rick Adams wrote:
> In article <"our.mail.com-priv".9405171255.AA26258@mercury.interpath.net> you write:
> >Seems to me the time to have raised the issue of cooperative agreements
> >was when the solicitation was first issued. My copy of NSF-93-52 (the
> >vBNS, NAP, etc. solicitation) states the NSF intent for a cooperative
> >agreement from day one:
> >
> > It is anticipated that this solicitation will result in two or more
> > separate five-year cooperative agreements between NSF and the
> > organizations and/or consortia of organizations chosen as NAP
> > Manager(s), RA, and vBNS Provider. It is also anticipated that
> > this solicitation will result in a number of four-year cooperative
> > agreements with organizations chosen as Regional Network Providers.
> >
>
>
> My letter of June 3, 1993 filed in response to the request for questions said
> (among others):
>
> If the vBNS provider is allowed to have customers other than those
> specifie by NSF, then presumably the vBNS provider is offering
> commercial quality servce. Explain why the vBNS award can still
> be coonsidered a cooperative agreement rather than the more obvious
> procurement of service.
>
> NSF declined to answer it.
>
> So, the question WAS raised and ducked from day one.
>
> --rick
>
