[1572] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (peter@goshawk.lanl.gov)
Tue Nov 12 15:27:44 1991
To: Dave Hughes <daveh@csn.org>
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 08 Nov 91 19:08:05 -0700.
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 10:44:42 MST
From: peter@goshawk.lanl.gov
Dave,
Thanks for chasing down the detail on the current wording of the
"Buy American" provision.
As one of the participants in the Westnet discussion on
the "Buy America" clause, I would like to take issue with
your perception of people's comments.
>>> 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 believe the principle people at the Westnet meeting supported was to
have the opportunity to procure "the best equipment" without regard for its
country of origin. This principle is certainly simple, but I would not
say it is "simplistic". As network providers, they need to have the
best tools possible at competitive prices, otherwise in the
long term they will be out of business. It is great to see that people
want to further the current drive for opening the telecommunications markets,
and have sufficient confidence in American participants to say "D.C., please
keep out of our procurement decisions."
Most protective measures to date work against the consumer,
as we can see in the Steel, Automobile and Semiconductor export
restriction agreements our government has negotiated with export
intensive countries. While driving up the cost of the commodity, these
agreements have also insured that the additional monies end up with the
foreign companies which American companies are competing against.
There are studies which show that the cost to the American consumer for
protecting the American auto industry is approximately US$4 billion a
year, and the cost for each new job created is around $170,000/yr.
Anyone who saw the mid-1980s fiasco with semiconductor trade policies
probably does not want to see a repeat in their own industry.
Lastly, your comments on Oppenheimer are amazingly off the mark. To
claim he "just wanted to get it working" is not correct, and fails
to reflect the arguments on the development, testing and
use of nuclear warheads he made during the course of his
lifetime(including his tenure as director of the Manhattan project.)
I suggest those who are interested in learning about Oppenheimer
read Richard Rhodes' Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won the
Pullitzer for historical writing a few years ago.
Dave, I whole heartedly support your call for people to let their
government know what is one their mind, and I also hope HPCC will
pass this year. But, protectionism does not belong in this bill and
I would prefer the compromise you propose to eliminate this clause.
It is the posture consistent with a country trying to get other
markets opened to American products.
With Regards,
Peter Ford
Los Alamos National Labs
