[1560] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Fri Nov 8 21:08:44 1991
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 19:08:05 -0700
From: Dave Hughes <daveh@csn.org>
To: com-priv@psi.com, newt@ultra.com
Woah there!
John Clements of EDUCOM put out a call for everyone here on the net to
call Congressman's Gephardt's office and put pressure on him to drop the
House's 'Buy American' provision in the High Performance Computing Act's
bill. Such a sticking point between the House (H656) and Senate
versions (S272) that President Bush has threatened to veto the bill if
the 'Buy American' clause stays in there. And the NREN would fail to
materialize for another year, if ever. I want to see it as much as
anyone on here, but I am not so open minded my brains will fall out.
What 'Buy American' provision???? I did some checking into what that
bill really says. While all I have at this instant is an oral
representation (I will be getting the complete text of that provision by
fax. They can't 'do' e-mail) it comes through loud and clear that the
provision only requires that any company who intends to buy from foreign
sources using funds under this bill, must publically *notify* Congress,
60 days in advance, of their intentions, and why. There is nothing that
forces the US company to 'buy American' but to damn well tell the rest
of us that they are doing so (with our tax money), and enough time in
advance that US companies who didn't know they were buying what to make
an offer, or those companies who are doing the buying have not done a
diligent search for possible US suppliers, learn about possible US
suppliers. (In this game the best supplier might be a tiny US start up
- like Cisco was at one time)
I find little to object to that provision, quite frankly, for a number
of reasons. Not the least of which has been the track record of 'public
notification,' much less an open bidding procedure, throughout this
whole murky ANS-NSF-Backbone history. I attended the portion of the
Westnet (a midlevel serving Colorado) meeting this week where Bill
Shrader, PSI laid out a history that demonstrated that the ANS-backbone
deals were made by the NSF with neither notice nor bidding. (Joel Maloff
of ANS was there too, and while he objected to some of Shrader's 'facts'
he did not object to those - put up in print on a screen for all to
read.)
So what is the White House's real objections? Or is it just acting as a
mouthpiece for the IBM's, MCI's, AT&T's and other corporate giants who
are so loved in the oval office, a year before the election?
Sure all the giant companies would *love* to spend public money
the way they want to without anyone knowing how or why, even in this
increasingly important national technological arena. I heard a lot of
network administrators at Westnet say "We should'nt care where the
equipment comes from, just get it working." Well I care, and for a lot
more reasons than 'just get it working.' (that simplistic attitude
reminds me of Oppenheimer and all the other scientists at Los Alamos
when they 'just wanted to get it working'. A nuclear explosion, that is.
With very little long-viewed concern for its consequences. It ain't
going to be bombs that blow this nation to kingdom come this time, it'll
be bits and bytes, bought and paid for by US tax dollars.)
I am keenly reminded of a series of things which have happened - and not
happened - to a small technologically advanced company called
Ultranetwork Technolgies. Being announced as a supplier to a large RBOC
and then left out. And although it has supplied the Federal Republic of
Germany 800 megabit switching, (did I hear something about a big company
that is having trouble at 45mb?) and is interested in the Gigabit Test
Bed project, just not being considered along with the giant companies.
Are you who are ready to pressure Gephardt so sure that the
Administrations objections are anything more than big company
backscratching? I'm not.
So I think a few calls to the White House are in order here too. I
already made mine, along the above lines. 202-456-1111.
But the message should be - to BOTH of them - "We, the public want that
HPC bill passed, this session. And we expect you to work out a
compromise. And, White House, *NO* veto's, or you will get my personal
veto next November!"
