[1st-mile-nm] Chicago firm to sell untapped Lamdarail fiber bandwidth

Mon Jun 23 11:20:58 PDT 2008

whats interesting is that NLR and NM-NLR (two different entities) have
pitched to various people around the state that Commercial use would be
available for the NLR connection.

County of Sandoval NM wanted (and still wants) to leverage the NLR
connection for commercial economic development.

Other local commercial companies have expressed interest.

To date, the NM-NLR folks haven't figured out how to make that work.
Even with commercial types willing to help the process.

The question that I haven't ever been able to get answered from anyone
at NM-NLR / UNM / CIRT, etc is:

Ok, So I connect to LambdaRail in Albuquerque (or Intel  or Santa Fe or
??), what is the other end of the connection ???    Does this guarantee
that I have a connection to Sony Studios in Culver City??  or to ??

No one can actually articulate the technical process and path that
packets will take once they are presented at the 505 Marquette location.

Its a technical question and it requires a technical answer.  To date
its been glossed over by the technical people managing NM-NLR.

It would be nice to see that well articulated answer on this list.

At present NM-NLR is a $5,000,000 ""asset"" that really isn't seeing
much use.  Heck NMSU and NM Tech still are not connected, even after
everyone said they where a year ago.

John Brown, for himself
the views expressed here are my personal views and do not represent any
the views of any commercial interest.

peter wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm