[1st-mile-nm] Chicago firm to sell untapped Lamdarail fiber bandwidth
peter
pete at ideapete.com
Mon Jun 23 11:05:05 PDT 2008
I don't think that's the point Barney
Let me lay out my train of thought for this posting in addition to the
voluminous emails I have received this morning.
Internet 2 ( I2 )and National LambdaRail* *( LMDR ) have a fundamentally
different business model, based on the fact that I2 uses and leases its
systems whereas LMDR wants to OWN everything end to end with someone
else paying the tab.. The latter model doesn't even have a real business
plan (what university or government idea does?) and no idea of final
cost, except that its going to be huge $$$. I2/Abilene is following the
electrical power "honest broker" infrastructure model of different
entities controlling production, transmission and end supply to create
impartiality and prevent an end to end monopoly, especially important as
open access joins the ultra high bandwidth arena. LMDR wants to create
an absolute monopoly from end to end. The commercial companies spotted
this immediately and have been hammering at LMDR about the fact that
they could end up sitting on a trillion-dollar asset -- all created
under the feel good mantra of great research funded with public and
private donated dollars.
When LMDR tried to swallow I2 last year part of the different attitudes
of both boards was the primary fact that it seemed LMDR was creating an
absolute monopoly and it was obvious to many sources that I have talked
to that LMDR was even then closely involved with commercial entities who
could make a pile of money out of this. Now we know it was Darkstrand.
I2 found this absolutely repellent to the very nature of the system and
so balked. Thats why the takeover failed. (If anyone has any more
details please post them.) Even go look at their websites and tell me
which one really understands the web at todays lowly level and who knows
where its headed (http://www.internet2.edu/ and http://www.nlr.net/).
I2's tagline "Member FOCUSED, member led" says it all. LMDR can now say
with a straight face "Using YOUR donated money to benefit our directors
and shareholders."
Some of the mail I have received this morning makes me out to be a
Luddite / LMDR bigot, and for those who know me is laughable. No, I
simply do not like to see my tax and donation dollars extracted under
false pretenses.
Back in about 2001, I served as senior technology adviser to the
Association of Commerce and Industry (ACI) in Albuquerque. Why me?
Well, read here http://www.ideapete.com/who.html. Frankly, i was trusted
and potential tech fund raisers were not. LMDR local CIRT / UNM
sponsors were trying to raise money for the local service connections
including the gigabit pop at 505 Marquette and its connection to UNM
CIRT, lobbying (mostly unsuccessfully) at all levels including state. No
one at ACI really understood what LMDR was and how it impacted business
and the economy, and so I was detailed to sort out all the technobabble
being thrown around and enlighten ACI members. At the time much had been
made of the fact that if business got behind the project, there would be
huge benefits to industry and we (the business community) would be a
primary cost efficient benefit user, and massive educational, health
benefits would accrue, and on and on. Lots and lots of blue sky thinking
and very little application outline and real rubber-meets-the-road
clearly defined objectives or clarity. I even heard from one senior
CIRT/LMDR source and he knows who he is ,when questioned about financial
cost planning " Heck this is too exciting to put a price tag on it, its
only money " I hope his mortgage company feels the same way.
ACI delivered what we had been asked for and actively and successfully
lobbied for funds. Even then, we pointed out that "You (UNM / CIRT /
LMDR local) have made some huge assumptions but have not developed any
clear plans for deployment and application or prudent financial need. We
(ACI) can really help you to do that." In many of the conversations
over the years with research departments who were the nominally targeted
end users asking what do you really need now and what will you need in
the future, ( called usability engineering ) it became very apparent
that, with the massive transformation in data originating from the
evolution from API-local-machine to API-application-cloud -worldwide, a
whole different model of information distribution was evolving and many
departments were, bluntly, even questioning the need for CIRT with its
system control, uber-boss mentality and the need for another expensive
centralized fat pipe system. I, and some financial experts at our top
local banks and audit companies, also thought that the financing that
would be required for LMDR to really work had been grossly
underestimated -- purposely -- and, again, they had a plan with no cost
basis except for expensive VERY expensive. LMDR is in need of LOTS of
money because its basic premise and plan was totally non realistic.
Supercomputers now are being outperformed worldwide by very different
initiatives (such as Beowulf clusters) for faster smaller more flexible
systems (Google api's) so that, to the researchers' joy, a heck of a lot
more budget dollars are going directly to the project bottom line.
I2 got real industrial strength financial planning support from the
get-go. hence their very different model. After the ACI successfully
lobbied for the first basic capital support, and even contributed, we
were basically told to F*#@ off. Seven years later, I still do not see
any evidence that any application needs analysis, business plan,
realistic cost analysis even exists at UNM - CIRT - LMDR ( local or
national ) even the blue sky buzzwords have not changed.
Again, what are the main problems with the LMDR initiative: Well, it's
been used as a huge fund raising tool by multiple people in this state
and nationwide (some involved in fraud, like Sandoval Broadband) who,
frankly, could not not tell the difference between an Ethernet
connection and a light bulb socket. Thats now being turned on its head
into a commercially directed profit center
I also expect to see many of the LMDR board members nationwide suddenly
appear on commercial boards (Darkstrand) making another ton of money,
which would lead one to suspect the fix was in from the start.
Under the circumstances, I think it would be prudent to freeze all
future government (at all levels, including university associated
grants) investment in LMDR until its board and Darkstrand come
absolutely clean with its business plan (audited, and including real
applications not buzzwords) and show us who really benefits (again,
audited) and what they did with all the money. Or let Goggle buy them
out and fire everyone who played this game.
This is the entire future of the US we are talking about, and looking at
the pattern evolving : LMDR with UNM / CIRT as its local agent thinks
it's the next AT&T
Barney, how about posting a clear UNM / CIRT / LMDR business plan
initiative that is web active iterate (If you post PDFs and PowerPoints,
you have proved my point) online so everyone can see who's what and
where and who REALLY benefits (in real terms, not hyper)?
I also see that the I2 project site at UNM is 404. Does that mean what I
think it does?
For Clarity , I am not a member nor do I have any financial interest in
either I2 or LMDR.
For all those on the list intent on sending and spreading vitriol about
me: " Bring it on! I was raised in Mugabe country." And if you want to
debate this and post the debate on Youtube, let's go.
( : ( : pete
Peter Baston
*IDEAS*
/www.ideapete.com/ <http://www.ideapete.com/>
Arthur Maccabe wrote:
>
> Darkstrand's deal with NRL is that they will maintain part of the
> infrastructure and provide an infusion of money to extend NLR's assets
> in exchange for being able to sell excess bandwidth to commercial
> entities. The partnership makes sense in that the universities that
> bought into NLR are not in a position to market the assets and, in
> wake of the failed I2 merger, NLR was in need of money for expansion
> and for maintenance. The assets that we own are still owned by the
> members of NLR.
>
> I2 may currently have a better business model than NLR; however, I2's
> business model has improved quite bit since the inception of NLR.
> Moreover, NLR continues to offer services that I2 cannot offer and,
> until recently, I2's governance model was fundamentally broken.
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 22, 2008, at 10:41 PM, peter wrote:
>
>> Ho boy, now a company is going to charge companies for using
>> Lamdarail after the same companies spent years ponying up and raising
>> money to build it.
>>
>> http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-thu-darkstrand-fiber-optic-njun05,0,4884560.story
>>
>>
>> Internet 2 / Abilene was and is a far better business model
>>
>> I haven't seen this sort of chicanery since ATT tried to bury packet
>> switching and Ethernet
>>
>> Proves my point LMDR was an academic money raising scheme from the
>> beginning
>>
>> Who's going to be the first brave person to ask LMDR committee "what
>> they did with all the money ? "
>>
>> I also hear that Level 3 "PASSED" on the deal having a "BETTER"
>> option, something is seriously wrong here
>>
>> ( : ( : pete
>> --
>> Peter Baston
>> IDEAS
>> www.ideapete.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/1st-mile-nm/attachments/20080623/6d8e4169/attachment.html>
More information about the 1st-mile-nm
mailing list