[10396] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
To those that Slam , More NEt news vBNS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph W. Stroup)
Mon Feb 21 10:52:29 1994
From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 1994 07:57:07 -0800 (PST)
Forwarded message:
>From Postmaster@aol.com Mon Feb 21 06:40:03 1994
>From: Postmaster@aol.com
X-Mailer: America Online Mailer
Sender: "Postmaster" <Postmaster@aol.com>
Message-Id: <9402210933.tn05901@aol.com>
To: nettech@crl.com
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 94 09:33:30 EST
Subject: Returned Mail: Member unknown: tomc47
X-Status:
The mail you sent could not be delivered;
it was addressed to an unknown AOL user (tomc47).
The text you sent follows...
In your reply to Cook you sort of slam him. I take issue with the fact that
at Sol. was put on the street asking for one thing and a bidder offered
more and modified services. That would be fine if the other bidders were
allowed to deviate from the sol. In most cases this is not allowed. The
(the gov't asks) and we the contractors/bidders reply to the spec's Unless
its an RFP ? Was this an RFP ? Any private deals , offerings by MCI to the
NSf without the other bidders having the chance to be involved would seem to
put MCI at an unfair competitive advantage. This is not generally allowed.
And as a matter of fact GE has made it a practice of PROTESTING awards made
under such circumstances.
I also read over the IG report supplied to me by a fellow netter. I see
where the people at Merit contracted to ANS. This is a clear violation
of the law. The NSF IG does not have the power to modify the law, cover up
a crime and call it something else. I am amazed that no one has ever gone
outside the internal NSF system and taken this into Federal Court.
To the NSF I would say - I am not the person that does everything I am
told. Are you the type of people that expect the public to just accept
your opinions and just go away.
On the FOIA issue - there have been many government wide memo's in the
past few administrations. They basicly mention that a FOIA request
should only be suggested as a last ditch deal. The government finds them
time consuming and a burden. Unless Classified Information is sought most
government contractors that he "You will have to send in a FOIA Request"
know that they are getting the brush off. When an agency as small an far
from the DOD as the NSF gets into the FOIA thing, it just heightens my
suspicion.
Just like the past we have current issue that I consider "OPEN" on this
whole NSF/vBNS deal. They are not just going to go away. Any protest of this
so called award should be made outside the NSF in-house self-serving system.
It should be based on facts and if that fails a language that these people
understand all too well - POLITICS.
With the RBOC's getting into Cable un-opposed and with The BELL Atlantic/TCI
deal having the potiential to endanger the financial status of the company,
its up to us - the rate payers to look for more concrete assurances. If these
deals only bring wealth to a small group of people, we will be no better off
than the failed S&L deals, or the problems faced by the Utility companies
with the Nuke power thing. In the long run, the PR Face says "Electronic
Superhighway" , I say where? At what cost? Built by whom? and how practical
is this? If it fails who will bear the costs? We the people have the right to
know. And we the people have the right to know where the NSF is spending our
tax dollars. If its just to keep Al Gore popular and make him the next President
I doubt thats a vaild reason to spend this money. I have yet to see any real
need for more than what we have now. I will address that in another posting.
Under our Freedom of the Press situation Gordon Cook is as legitimate a
reporter as any of the rest of you out there in netland. And as a U.S. citizen
I have the right to question what my government spends its money on. Those
who can be damaged by my inquiries cry foul - I say so what.
Joseph W. Stroup
----------------------- Headers ------------------------
>From com-priv-forw@lists.psi.com Mon Feb 21 00:17:42 1994
Received: from lists.psi.com by mailgate.prod.aol.net with SMTP
(1.37.109.4/16.2) id AA09380; Mon, 21 Feb 94 00:17:42 -0500
Received: by lists.psi.com (4.1/SMI-4.1.3-PSI)
id AA16680; Mon, 21 Feb 94 00:13:25 EST
Return-Path: <nettech@crl.com>
Received: from psi.com by lists.psi.com (4.1/SMI-4.1.3-PSI)
id AA15919; Sun, 20 Feb 94 23:37:35 EST
Received: from crl2.crl.com by psi.com (4.1/2.1-PSI/PSINet)
id AA28549; Sun, 20 Feb 94 23:37:54 EST
Received: by crl2.crl.com id AA17788
(5.65c/IDA-1.5 for com-priv@psi.com); Sun, 20 Feb 1994 20:43:52 -0800
>From: "Joseph W. Stroup" <nettech@crl.com>
Message-Id: <199402210443.AA17788@crl2.crl.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 1994 20:43:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3322
Subject: Dick St. Peters Comments
AOL-Member: tomc47
