Re: NPR morning news apparently just reported...
> 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. -Bill
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.
-Bill
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? Justin
On Fri, 23 May 2003 15:59:44 CDT, listuser@numbnuts.net said:
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?
How many US tanks are there now? How many UK tanks are there now? How many French tanks are there now? Possession *is* 9/10ths of the law, especially when you're enforcing it with things that shoot large heavy depleted-uranium shells with high explosives in them... ;)
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)
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
(and not again the initial paragraph from me... add to that: I didn't read either of these articles)
Not speaking for my employer either.... I was wondering, who was hired to rebuild the telephone systems in Germany and Japan after WWII? I don't recall AT&T being hired to install switches in Tokyo or Berlin. http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/reference/cstb46.htm The United States Constabulary of Occupied Germany "Wherever patrols operate, they are in constant communication by radio or telephone with their platoon or troop headquarters, which are in turn linked in a chain of communications reaching up to Constabulary Headquarters. The telephone lines used by the Constabulary are, for the most part, those of the German system, although some military lines and equipment are available. In addition to radio and telephone, the Constabulary is hooked up in a teletype system, which is the most comprehensive and effective communications network operated by the United States Army in Europe."
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
(and not again the initial paragraph from me... add to that: I didn't read either of these articles)
Not speaking for my employer either....
I was wondering, who was hired to rebuild the telephone systems in Germany and Japan after WWII? I don't recall AT&T being hired to install switches in Tokyo or Berlin.
A better example may be the Eastern Sector of Germany when the Wall came down. There, there was nothing worth saving. Siemons was the lead contractor, I think. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 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?"
Er, not quite. Every single cent/penny/whatever spent on the whole conflict will be extracted from the oil revenues as some sort of 'commercial compensation' plan. The taxes you (and I) end up paying to fund this little jaunt will disappear elsewhere. Peter
on 5/23/2003 3:33 PM 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.
AWCC is the permanent Afghan network. The network MCI is building in Iraq is a temporary local network for use by the reconstruction teams. I can't find anything that says whether this was awarded by USAID or by the Pentagon directly. If the former, then this is likely to be a subcontract under Bechtel. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote: > AWCC is the permanent Afghan network. Uh, that's putting it in a pretty flattering light... AWCC is the terminally flaky A-carrier that's having to be replaced. Have you ever tried to place calls through them? -Bill
on 5/23/2003 4:39 PM Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2003, Eric A. Hall wrote: > AWCC is the permanent Afghan network.
Uh, that's putting it in a pretty flattering light... AWCC is the terminally flaky A-carrier that's having to be replaced. Have you ever tried to place calls through them?
I didn't say AWCC was good. It's permanent in the sense that it wasn't temporary -- the Iraqi network that MCI is building appears to have a fixed shelf-life and appears to be geographically limited to Baghdad. The "permament" nationwide network(s) will be built by whoever the Iraqi interim government chooses for the job (as was the case with AWCC). Whether those end up sucking or not isn't the point here either. -- Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
participants (9)
-
Bill Woodcock -
Christopher L. Morrow -
David Lesher -
Eric A. Hall -
listuser＠numbnuts.net -
Mike Tancsa -
Peter Galbavy -
Sean Donelan -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu