Pete Kruckenberg and I have spent a great deal of time talking about what the UEN Network future should/will be. Pete's Blog, What is the Best Network?, is a good review of the best thinking on this topic. I've spent time last night and again this morning reviewing Isenberg's web pages.

Isenberg points out that the best network is not the network that will make money. The best network for the LECs, OCCs, etc. would be the one that generates the most money and constrains the users to a very small flow of bits. This is the network that we have used in the past and for the most part are still using.

Isenberg also points out that transforming a network can be dangerous. It is possible that the organization best suited to run the network of the future may not be the organization that exists today. This is a great insight for several reasons. Not the least of which is that every organization must be in the business of remaking itself to survive in the new technology economy. (My observation.) So, two questions come to mind.

1. What is the best organization to run the network of the future?

2. Can UEN be that organization?

I'm intrigued by the ideas put forth by Isenberg and embraced by Pete. My initial analysis gives me great cause for hope. Not only can UEN be the organization, it should be. Here is my reasoning.

The best network is a stupid network that is low cost/high bandwidth.

UEN has a history of pushing the envelop for future network development. We also have a history of doing this at very low costs. Also, the UEN budget is static or even shrinking. This fact requires UEN to do far more with less. For instance. Our Internet traffic usage is doubling every 18 months. UEN must find creative ways to provide for this growth. We know that it won't happen by getting the Utah State Legislature to double our Internet budget. Merely purchasing Internet transit won't cut it. And it's much more complicated than total bandwidth.

If left to purchase bandwidth each university, college and district could probably make do. It would probably cost more but this would likely be buried by effective accountants somewhere. The ability to provide diverse Internet paths would most certainly be lost. Another casualty would be local peering and any specialized routing. Each entity would just have to accept the reality that routing problems would be a way of life.

UEN also has another advantage. Isenberg says, "The best network is the hardest one to make money running." Great. UEN has no profit motive. All proceeds can go right back into the network. This gives UEN a big advantage. As Randy Sorensen related to me recently, just outsourcing a city network to a commercial entity will at least double the cost of day-to-day maintenance.

One Isenberg observation that is really cool, "In the best network, the services live at the edges of the network and use the network to transport bits; they do not rely on any special characteristics of the network itself." With a stupid network anyone is free to innovate. That means the innovators with the best ideas and a little capital will succeed over the LECs with marginal ideas and big budgets. This also advantages all of us as users. We will get the cool, useful new applications that best suite our needs/wants. And we will be able to say no to new products that are aimed at enhancing big telco profits.

UEN would compete for this space with everyone else. If we can be fast enough and creative enough we could produce innovation at the edge. It wouldn't be a foregone conclusion that we could be productive in this space. If we were inept then that part of UEN would wither and die. But in this area UEN still has a distinct advantage. Shrinking budgets facilitate the need for us to be creative. We have no ability to throw money at problems.

I don't see a conflict in this area, either. Because innovation happens at the edge, everyone is free to innovate. Good projects at UEN don't preclude good projects from anyone else. Our stakeholders are free to produce cool innovations right along side of UEN. The network won't care because all it is doing is transporting bits.

Another intriguing opportunity exists for UEN. Isenberg talks about solving the dilemma by turning the network over to the government. He also quickly dismisses that idea. But what if UEN could help bridge the gap between the commercial carriers and the government? What if UEN could be instrumental in helping LECs to adjust their investment and development strategies while helping other government and commercial entities (customers) to ease into and use these systems? It could work. And to a point it has already begun. Much of the UEN efforts over the past two years have produced results. Many of the Utah LECs have already or shortly will provide cost competitive Ethernet circuits.

There is no question in my mind that UEN must make changes to survive. That is a true fact for all technology organization in existence today. Even Cisco Systems and Microsoft must compete in this space. It's change or die for all of us.

It is also clear to me that UEN is uniquely positioned to develop the stupid, best networks of the future. We can, and should, be that organization.

That's all for now.........
11:37:41 AM    comment []