[10546] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: $50 Million Dollar Gift
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Doran)
Sat Feb 26 20:34:34 1994
To: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Feb 1994 22:33:39 PST."
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 1994 11:32:34 -0800
From: Sean Doran <smd@cesium.clock.org>
In msg <199402170633.AA07333@crl.crl.com> "Joseph W. Stroup"
<nettech@crl.com> writes:
| Given what I know (first hand) about the process, requirements etc. It
| looks to me like the NSF and MCI got together for a private meeting to
| figure out how MCI could meet and exceed the requirement.
This isn't what happened. In reality, there was a panel of really
competent networking people assembled to vet the technical aspects of
each bid, and then the price-performance ratio of each one. My bet is
that the MCI bid was simply the best on the first front, for what NSF
was looking for, and on the second front it would have been at least
competitive.
Whether or not NSF should have chosen in the end to fund a vBNS --
given that high-speed data technology is all easily purchasable from
most telcos and is therefore no longer experimental -- they did so,
and followed their own guidelines.
Don't forget that the guidelines and RFP are now about two years old,
and were drawn up when the technology to do the vBNS simply wasn't
available off the shelf.
| Bidders other than MCI NEVER had a chance.
I certainly understand how one could seem to see conspiracy between
MCI and NSF, but in reality there probably isn't any. The process is
unfortunately opaque, and the way Dr. Wolff handles rumours,
accusations and bad PR is unremarkable. Moreover, the NSFNet team is
tiny (I gather it's about four people) and is ill-equipped for the
amount of public exposure events have brought upon them.
The smallness and the amount of over-work generally mean that the NSF
folks don't have time to scheme and plot, but it also means that they
don't have time to spend energy on appearing to be open and honest.
Instead they are simply doing their part as employees of the
government agency in charge.
This is a fault of the system. It also means that people who *really*
generate controversy and bad PR (viz. ANS's Al Weis and Ittai Hershman
and company, most of whom are simply careless with tone, choice of
words and PR rather than being arrogant, conniving or evil in any way)
aren't really reined in by NSF.
NSF hasn't got the human resources to really scrutinize and police the
cooperative agreement, especially while it seems to be meeting the
government's goals.
| I for one would be very interested in seeing copies of all the proposals.
Why? I think it would be far more interesting, and far easier, to see
a copy of the minutes taken when the selection panel met to examine
the proposals. It would almost certainly dispel your chief concerns
about some sort of collaboration between NSF and MCI.
Also, I think you will find that the NSF would argue that proposals
belong to the organizations making them. Whether or not you'd agree,
there is certainly some interest on all sides in not making them public
until there is an award, in the interest of fairness.
As well, there is little point in seeing the losing bids (and the
bidders certainly wouldn't exactly be keen on publishing them in most
cases).
Finally, while on the topic of losing bids, if AT&T really offered a
no-cost vBNS (which I gather is not what happened), why don't *they*
publish their losing bid? It would be an irresistible political tool,
if they really were rejected despite offering a technically-
acceptable, flexible, zero-cost proposal.
The reality, though, is that companies (and phone companies in
particular) aren't charities, and wouldn't bid a free service even if
they could offer it and gain some intangibles from it.
Sean.
