[9167] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: esnet vs nsfnet: contracts vs coop agreements
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brock N. Meeks)
Mon Dec 20 07:37:03 1993
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 04:34:15 -0800
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.sf.ca.us>
To: com-priv@psi.com, cook@path.net
Gordon -- I can't answer why DoE uses a contract while NSF uses a cooperative
agreement. But from covering both the DoE ESNet contract and the NSFnet
there are a couple of things have really strike me as odd.
First, DoE, although they have called for contract, haven't been successful
in getting their network have they? Why? This is simple. AT&T has used
all the tricks of the trade to make sure the ESNet procurement didn't
go through. This includes hiring as its point-man lawyer a former GAO
Contract Board of Appeals lawyer to represent the company back to that
*same board* during the protest of the ESNet award to Sprint. The protest
was upheld (something that happens less than 3% of the time) in favor
of AT&T. Funny that they AT&T lawyer used to work with the guys that
upheld the protest... used to play golf with them, too.
It's clear that AT&T was only stalling for time because their ATM switch
didn't work or that it wasn't available commerically. Especially not at
the time of the original bid. Sprint is far and away the leader in this
area and it's driving AT&T nuts. So they've "gamed" the entire process.
Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN. But this is only possible BECAUSE IT'S A CONTRACT.
You won't see the losing NSFNet bidders protesting. Why? Because they
can't. Becuase it's effectively a GRANT, not a CONTRACT, there is no
legal recourse for the losing bidder.
So, while the cooperative agreement really sucks as far as holding the
grantee, like Merit or ANS, to its promises and includes no disincentives
(or incentives for that matter... other than press release fodder...), it
DOES ALLOW TECHNOLOGY TO BE DELIVERED and used.
But DoE has now been waiting 18 months for ATM. By extrapalation, the
nation's competitiveness has been retarded for 18 months because AT&T
has fu**ed with the process for its own gain.
As time has proven, Sprint *was* capable for delivering on its promise of
commerical ATM in the time called for in the original ESnet contract.
Sprint has its ATM commecial network up and running with Hughes as its
first customer. AT&T? Nowhere. They've just annouced, last week, that
Ameritech will be the first commerical customer, but it won't have that
network up and running until 1995.
Where does Congress come in? Somebody got to Rep. Synar and asked him to
go forward with this. Hell, there's no love lost between Synar and
the DoE anyway. There's bad blood there going way back.
And in the lag time, DoE suffers because it can't get its contract through.
NSFNet rebid goes forward. Slower technology? Yes, but at least when it's
finally awarded it will go forward (with more success than the current
grantees have been able to pull off, I hope). That's the difference. If
AT&T fails for its bid at the NSFNet backbone (yes, AT&T bid, as did Sprint),
they won't be able to trot out their hired guns... unlike they've done
over the ESNet contract.
Brock Meeks
reporter
Communications Daily
