National network security

Typically, a business takeover is of interest only to Wall Street and shareholders. In the ongoing battle over MCI, there is much more at stake. An essential stakeholder is the U.S. government and its citizens because MCI provides critical national security and homeland security infrastructure. This takeover is far more than a fight over money and wealth.

The men and women who protect our borders, secure our transportation systems and fight the war on terrorism depend on these kinds of communications networks to securely share intelligence and information. This information flow is made possible by a complex and sophisticated voice and data system provided by only a handful of communications companies.

Much of that critical communications system is provided by MCI, a company now at the center of a battle for ownership. Consequently, the sale of MCI must be viewed through the prism of homeland security — not only by the marketplace and by MCI's shareholders but also by policymakers with M&A oversight, homeland security and national security responsibilities.

MCI supports federal agencies and organizations under nearly a thousand separate contracts. It operates a network that carries voice and high-speed data traffic for the Defense Information System Agency, which coordinates essential defense information among the military facilities around the continental U.S. Modern battlefields increasingly rely on network-centric warfare systems and platforms. The Federal Aviation Administration uses an MCI network to support air traffic control facilities.

If any of these networks are not maintained to the highest standards, critical communications could be crippled. Assuring the reliability of these services demands ownership by the strongest company with a record of providing top-quality service and with the unassailable financial and technical strength to invest in the highly complex and sophisticated infrastructure.

In MCI's bankruptcy process, there was grave concern about its government networks and how they would fare if the company could not survive. Those concerns are still just as valid. Evaluation of corporate suitors for MCI should ascertain whether the acquiring entity has the financial stability and capacity to invest in and support critical network infrastructure and whether it can withstand fluctuations in a dynamic and changing communications and national security environment.

MCI is too important a national asset to be entrusted to any company that lacks the stability to uphold these critical communications and security responsibilities.

DOSSIER: ASA HUTCHINSON

Occupation: Alawyer in private practice in Washington, D.C., and Arkansas, is the former under secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Hutchinson was elected three times to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, before leading the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Location: Washington, D.C., and Arkansas