OT: protectionist practices?

[Joshua Zeidner]

 posted to AZIPA today... the government sweethearts get another deal: At&t,
MCI, Sprint, etc.

-------------------------------------------

$68 billion federal project a boost for local telecoms
The Business Journal of Phoenix - 2:49 PM MST Thursday, May 31, 2007 by Ty
Young The Business Journal

Five companies have been tapped to build the second portion of the federal
government's largest telecommunications upgrade to date.
The U.S. General Services Administration awarded AT&T Corp., Level 3
Communications, MCI Communications Services Inc., Qwest Government
Services Inc. and Sprint Solutions Inc. a portion of the $20 billion
Networx Enterprise contract. In March, the GSA announced recipients of the
larger Networx Universal contract.

Combined, the two make up the entire Networx program, a $68 billion,
10-year upgrade the federal telecommunications system to a more secure,
worldwide Internet Protocol and Multi Protocol Label Switching-based
network.

Moving to the IP and MPLS networks is designed to give government agencies
more flexibility to route telephone and data traffic around link failures,
congestion and bottlenecks on the communications grid. Among the
communications features are voice, wireless, satellite, optical and voice
over Internet protocol.
Applications also include embedded security systems, technology
refreshment, hosted content management and teleworking.

"With this award and other recent awards, we're bringing our customers the
full range of options for telecommunication services available," said
GSA's Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner Jim Williams in a prepared
statement. "GSA is on time and on target again with another major
acquisition, and our focus is now on helping our customers transition. The
FAS Networx team, including its customer agency team members, have done a
super job in delivering these transformational capabilities."

The Enterprise program differs from the Universal program because it has
fewer mandatory requirements. While the services will be similar, the
Universal contract requires 36 applications, while the Enterprise only has
nine. The Networx system will cover 135 federal agencies in 191 countries.

Tom Richards, executive vice president, business markets group for Qwest
(NYSE:Q), said the company's inclusion in both Networx contracts will push
Arizona's largest telecom firm further into the future.

"Winning Networx represents more than a significant revenue opportunity
for Qwest," he said in a prepared statement. "It also means that there is
no longer any doubt that Qwest continues to excel, and that we are among
the leaders in delivering innovative and valuable solutions for our
customers no matter their size or scope."

Qwest and AT&T are the only two companies to receive both Networx
contracts. The three-party Universal contract, worth $48 billion, also
includes Verizon Communications International Inc.

"Our Networx team will use the power of our industry-leading capabilities
and significant experience to meet the needs of all federal agencies,"
said Don Herring, senior vice president, AT&T Government Solutions. "By
harnessing our world-class networking and IT and software engineering
expertise, AT&T will help agencies focus on their mission instead of the
network.

For Sprint, which was denied the Universal contract, getting a portion of
the Enterprise deal was important in its efforts to keep pace with
competitors. Furthering its connection with the federal government gives
the company some additional momentum, said Gary Forsee, Sprint chairman
and chief executive.

"Sprint has built its success on being a telecommunications pioneer in the
federal arena, and winning the Networx Enterprise contract, which is
aligned with our forward-looking corporate strategy, now validates our
continued strong commitment to the federal marketplace," he said in a
prepared statement.

Jonathan Keyser
Principal

On 6/1/07, Alan Dayley <alandd at consultpros.com> wrote:
>
> Fritz wrote:
> > The above paragraph seems somewhat ill informed.  It states, in part
> >
> >     "We are currently in a political environment
> >        where GOVERNMENT (my emphasis) is more interested in ... "
> >
> > Is there anyone on this list who doubts that these "free market
> > restrictions"
> > (DMCA, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, etc.) were brought
> > about by PRIVATE corporate interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) using their
> > well armed cadre of lobbyists?
> >
> > Government itself has no interest.  However, the politicians occupying
> it
> > at any given time certainly do.  Most politicians like giving speeches
> and
> > getting re-elected and in todays times there's no better way to get
> > re-elected
> > than to "sell your services" to potentially large campaign donors.
> >
> > Our federal government has evolved into the "stick-up gun" for large,
> > private, corporate interests:  in essence a wealth transfer mechanism.
> >
> > A question for all the libertarian, Second Amendment fans on this list:
> > When there's a handgun shooting do you blame the gun or the shooter?
> >
> > Fritz
> >
> > I've got my welding goggles on, flame away .......... :-)
>
> First of all let me state that I agree with you.  I am confused about
> your distinction between "government" and "the politicians occupying it."
>
> I understand that our current form of government exists based on a set
> of laws and therefore, out lives any politician or functionary that
> serves in the government.  However, what government does is directed by
> those very politicians so in the context of this discussion, government
> IS the politicians.  Government HAS whatever interest the people
> currently running it have.
>
> That the people running the government have been and are influenced by
> lobbyists and corporate interests is not in question at all.  The RIAA
> or MPAA or any other group does not create the laws, government does.
> That such laws may be "purchased" by corporate interests through
> manipulation of the politicians is not in doubt but that does not change
> the fact that the GOVERNMENT is what creates and enforces said laws.
> Therefore, the government does have an interest.
>
> You even state "Our federal government has evolved into the "stick-up
> gun" for large, private, corporate interests" which sound like
> government interest to me.
>
> I think we are splitting hairs here but are essentially on the same
> side.  But, I am curious to understand your point.  What do you mean
> that government has not interest but the politicians running it do?  And
> why is that distinction important?
>
> Alan
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
>


-- 
.0000. communication.
.0001. development.
.0010. strategy.
.0100. appeal.

JOSHUA M. ZEIDNER
IT Consultant

( 602 ) 490 8006
jjzeidner at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20070601/1b6ab3e5/attachment.htm