[1801] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fair competition
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Rick Adams)
Sat Dec 28 19:41:56 1991
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 91 19:40:44 -0500
From: rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams)
To: mckenzie@BBN.COM, com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: your article <9112191306.AA07792@psi.com>
The fairness issue I am aware of is not about the 1987
NSFNET award won by Merit, et al, but what happened later that was
not part of the original proposal.
If we dispense for the moment with all of the weasel-wording,smoke and
mirrors,etc phrasing being used we have the following:
In 1987, Merit et al won the right to lose money providing a DEDICATED
network connecting the various regional networks. That event was fully
and fairly pubilicly competed and I don't think anyone involved has
ever said otherwise.
Now, here's the key point. The so-called "T3 upgrade" isn't an upgrade.
It is the dismantling of the T1 network and replacing it with
SHARED SERVICE from a commercial provider.
The fact that a $10 million (I can never remember the exact number)
SHARED SERVICE contract was effectively sole sourced without public
competition is the central issue.
If the $10 million had been spent to provide a DEDICATED network
for NSFNET, then it could have been considered an "upgrade".
However, by buying shared service, a fundamentally different procurement
was made and it absolutely should have been publicly competed. ESPECIALLY
since the backbone contract will be renewed for an additional 1.5 years
(1.5 * $10 million = $15 million not publically competed)
---rick
p.s. lets not waste time arguing over the appropriate politically correct
phrasing of joint cooperative agreements vs. procurements, etc.
That just depends on your point of view. My point of view is that I
could have done a hell of a lot better job for $10 million and I never had
the chance. Users AND potential providers lost out on this one, as it's
quite likely that a better proposal would have been presented had
the opportunity been given.
