[9189] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: ATM, AT&T & Brock's Post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brock N. Meeks)
Mon Dec 20 16:24:59 1993
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 13:22:52 -0800
From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock@well.sf.ca.us>
To: com-priv@psi.com, joseph@path.net
Cc: brock@well.sf.ca.us, cook@path.net
Joseph, I don't disagree with you that AT&T was perfectly within their
rights in protesting the contract. As you said, the govt. wrote the
rules.
I'm saying there is something to be critical of here when a company
like AT&T "games" the system. In my reporting on this story I've
heard a lot of things about the way AT&T handled itself. None of it
substantiated, so of course I could never print any of it, nor will
I repeat it here. I do feel I can be critical of the process, but
fully acknowleged that AT&T did nothing it wasn't allowed to do.
Further, for the record, let me say that I am in no way acting as
an apologist for Sprint. I have no stake in seeing this company
prosper and if I found anything fishy in how they worked the system,
I'd be on it in a flash. But I'm satisfied that Sprint did everything
right in this case and now, because of the way the system works, a bit
of technology that most everyone agrees is crucial to the national
information infrastructure is being withheld from the govt.
Brock Meeks
reporter
communications daily
