[9565] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Conditions of NSFnet privatization apparently not Enforced
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gordon Cook)
Tue Jan 11 00:01:33 1994
From: cook@path.net (Gordon Cook)
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 1994 21:00:50 PST
To: com-priv@psi.com
On September 10, 1990 Steve Wolff wrote his by now well known letter to Doug van
Houweling privatizing the NSFnet. As the Inspector General Review pointed out
last April there were numerous reviews of this action within the NSF that should
have taken place. For reasons not clear, these reviews didn't take place and
that lessened the confidence of the IG in its conclusion that Wolff acted
appropriately. Was the public interest protected? Some are doubtful. As the
text below points out there are some further signs that the public interest is
still not being protected.
The letter of September 10 listed several criteria that Advanced Network and
Services would have to meet. Namely:
QUOTE: 1) such users will reimburse the new corporation [ANS] for at least the
full average cost of the connection, the added traffic, and additional related
support, and
2) the reimbursements will be used to enhance the network infrastructure and
services, in order that the level of service provided by MERIT under its
Cooperative Agreement with the NSF not be diminished.
NSF and MERIT will agree on the technical means of compliance with 2) above."
UNQUOTE
In a freedom of information act request on December 8th I asked what NSF was
doing to ensure that these requirements were being fulfilled. Essentially
nothing was the NSF reply. Lets examine the NSF questions and aswers one by
one.
Did the NSF have any data on how ANS costs for network attachments were being
determined? The NSF responded that it did not have such data.
To the question: What was the technical means of compliance agreed upon by NSF
for point 2 above? Steve Wolff replied: "technical means of compliance are
[Bround-trip echo times and file transfer rates among hosts directly attached to
the NSFNET Backbone Service" (If Steve or anyone else would care to explain how
this is to work I'd appreciate it.)
I also asked "what information ANS has provided the NSF to ensure that it is in
compliance with point 1 above." The NSF letter of January 6, 1994 to me
replied: there are no documents in the agency's files from ANS providing
information to NSF to assure that it is in compliance with the first point noted
in your letter.
I also asked for "a listing of the reimbursements received by ANS and an
explanation of how they have been used to enhance network services. " The NSF
said that it had nothing here either. Specifically it stated: "ANS is the
appropriate entity to query for an explanation of how reimbursements have been
used. However, we are in the process of procuring a copy of a document from
MERIT that should answer this question and it will be forwarded to you
promptly."
To my question: "What has the NSF done to audit ANS or other wise ensure
accountability?" The NSF said that the IG had said that it could wait until the
cooperative agreement was over to audit MERIT. It said nothing about what it
had done to otherwise ensure that ANS is accountable, because it has apparently
done nothing.
The NSF MOST INTERESTINGLY avoided answering my third question:
3. If any of these conditions imposed on ANS have been changed I want to know
when and in detail why. I want in such a case to know exactly what the new
conditions are and how they are being enforced.
To this the NSF responded: "There are no documents in the agency that respond
to your third question." Were the conditions changed? The NSF doesn't say.
In short while Steve Wolff's privatization letter looked as though ANS would be
held accountable for protecting the public interest that Wolff enunciated, it
would appear that nearly 3 and one half years later the National Science
Foundation has NO IDEA whether ANS has lived up to any of the conditions the
letter sought to impose.
And in the face of all this ANS (MERIT) gets ANOTHER extension and a 20%
increase in money. Furthermore sources tell me that the NSF is very likely to
REAWARD the vBNS and NAPs to ANS and MCI! If this were military contracting by
the pentagon we'd surely have a congressional investigation into the
unwillingness or inability of the NSF to hold ANS to any reasonable standard of
accountability. But its only the key backbone of the American internet, and
apparently its just not that important?
Now since the deal was very cleverly set up so that ANS is at arms length from
NSF which deals only with MERIT, maybe ANS would be willing to set the record
straight and release verifiable documents showing how it has complied with and
respected the conditions imposed on it?
Or on the eve of the Vice President's speech do we have yet another example of
the ANS infrastructure pool where no one has the figures nor is anyone
responsible? After all its only a public trust and the taxpayers money. No big
deal.
If the NSF is unable to supply data, and if ANS is either unable or unwilling to do
the same, I'd like to hear from those who have any information pertaining to
these questions.
