Re: NPR morning news apparently just reported...

[listuser () numbnuts net]

I fear it will mostly consist of lots and lots of duct tape.

Justin


On Fri, 23 May 2003, Alexandra Kubis wrote:

> This was burried on CNN:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/22/news/companies/worldcom_probe.reut/index.htm
>
> ... How WorldCom....err.. MCI plans to fix a ~12$ billion dollar hole with a
> 45$ million plug is beyond me.
>
> -AK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <chris () UU NET>
> To: <listuser () numbnuts net>
> Cc: "Mike Tancsa" <mike () sentex net>; <nanog () nanog org>
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:59 PM
> Subject: Re: NPR morning news apparently just reported...
>
>
> > On Fri, 23 May 2003 listuser () numbnuts net wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 23 May 2003, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> > >
> > > > A government contract handed out not on technical merit, but for back
> room
> > > > political reasons ?  Shocking!
> > > >
> > > >          ---Mike
> > > >
> > > > At 01:33 PM 23/05/2003 -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >     > According to this article, yes they were involved with
> > > > >     > AWCC:
> > > > >     > http://www.afghanwireless.com/news_6apr.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Ouch.  If they were responsible for AWCC, that would hardly seem to
> be a
> > > > > basis for awarding them another similar contract.
> > >
> > > The funny this is at the state agencies I've worked for we were
> *required*
> > > to go through a bidding procedure prior to getting final approval for a
> > > purchase.  Unless we had an established relationship with a given
> company
> > > for similar products or services we had to follow the procedures.  I
> > > wouldn't at all be surprised to hear that sometime in the very near
> future
> > > a lawsuit was filed by various other telcos to try and get a piece of
> the
> > > pie or get the administration to be fair towards other telcos.  Who says
> > > it has to be a US telco?  Why can't it be a UK telco?
> >
> > please note I'm not a business guy, nor do I know anything directly about
> > this case... BUT, perhaps the contract was awarded on/with the FTS200X
> > contract? (its 2002 now I believe that WCOM/MCI is the prime on... or
> > atleast heavily related too) That would mean the gov't had a vehicle to
> > just create a task order to make the network buildout happen... As to 'why
> > a us company', perhaps its being done under the auspices of: "The us gov't
> > needs a phone network in iraq while they are there, so build something
> > good and leave it behind, as a bonus to the luckyiraq people?"
> >
> > (and not again the initial paragraph from me... add to that: I didn't read
> > either of these articles)