I Dislike Tech Conferences for the Most Part…

There was a time in my life that I went to a lot of tech conferences.  The years 2010-2016 were pretty busy for me in terms of conferences, booths, speaking, attending, etc.  For the most part, I have very little interest in these events.  I think they are a huge waste of time outside of the socializing.  This week I took a half day on a Friday to attend the New England Peering Forum in Cambridge MA.  This was a small conference, with an interesting talk track and being local, I thought I would try it as the worse case outcome was I would leave early and start the weekend.
Continue reading

Over The Top Service?

Most consumers are familiar with the availability of over the top (OTT) content. Examples are Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu and we could even include gaming services in the description. The model for an OTT content provider like Netflix is to ride over a user’s data plan, and that data plan can be DSL, FTTH as well as wireless to deliver content. The consumption model is disaggregated between the data plan (i.e. internet) provider and the content (i.e. service) provider. This is also the point at which there is tension between both parties in terms of the cost to deploy bandwidth and which party profits from the services that ride over the bandwidth. That is not a topic for this post.
Continue reading

An Open Letter to Hobbyists

  • Bandwidth is the Software of the Network
  • Regulating the Single Network Pipe is Driving Forward while looking in the Rearview Mirror

With age and experience, time provides the ability to clearly spot irony. In 1976, Bill Gates sent an open letter to computer hobbyists expressing his displeasure for software piracy. The letter even has a Wikipedia page.  When I read the FCC proposals regarding new neutrality, I feel like we have been over and over this ground before. Thirty-nine years ago Bill Gates wrote his letter to hobbyists and the majority of it is worth reading in the context of the net-neutrality debate: Continue reading

Completely Unscientific Study of Consumer Internet Prices

Bandwidth is deflationary and I find any arguments to the contrary to be foolish. This is a subject I have written about before here, here, here and here. Over the past few weeks, I have been reminded that it is always easier to solve most networking problems by applying bandwidth. A few weeks ago I found myself reading one of Marc Andreessen tweet streams of conciseness and I replied (see below). After making the tweet I wondered if I was correct?

Screen Shot 2014-09-07 at 9.31.41 AM
Continue reading

Comcast/Netflix Deal…what does it mean?

I am curious to learn the details around the Comcast/Netflix deal that is being widely reported this afternoon.  Having spent the better part of the past twenty-years selling equipment to service providers of all types on most continents and in a variety of regulated constructs, the subject of net-neutrality and OTT have been a prominent subject in my blogs over the past eight years.  SIWDT is coming up three years old and one benefit that content has to me is it is searchable and I can go back and critique my thoughts.  I did a search on “net neutrality” and it came back with four prior posts.  I carved out a relevant quote from each post:

Continue reading

Inconvenient Truths, SDN, Innovation and Other Ramblings

I started this post on March 27, 2012 and it resided in the draft folder in various forms till today.  During the intervening months a lot has happened.  Google publicly detailed their OpenFlow based WAN at ONS 2012.  Cisco announced ONE proving even large companies progress through the Kubler-Ross five stages.  SDN went beyond mainstream.  Over espresso on Sunday morning, I read this essay in the WSJ by Nichols Carr.  You are welcome to read the essay, but I will quote the concluding paragraph if you do not want to click out:

Knowing that the cause of our innovators’ faltering ambitions lies in our own nature does not make it any less of a concern. But it does suggest that, if we want to see a resurgence in big thinking and grand invention, if we want to promote breakthroughs that will improve not only our own lives but those of our grandchildren, we need to enlarge our aspirations. We need to look outward again. If our own dreams are small and self-centered, we can hardly blame inventors for producing trifles.”

I found the essay by Carr to be well timed.  On Friday of this past week, I had two casual interactions that subtly support Carr’s thesis. The first was a casual discussion with the CEO of Plexxi, who is a MIT grad.  I asked him where are the software grads or interns from MIT?  We are located next to the MIT campus.  We are building products that are complex, interesting, difficult to engineer, challenging, but they hold potential to have a profound impact on our industry.  If this was 1992, we would have a line of people out the door trying to get in, but it is 2012 and it seems too many innovative people take the network for granted and assume there is nothing to be done.

Our CEO’s response to me was that the young software engineers were all focused on trying to start the next Instagram, the next social mobile site that leverages the Cloud and big data to deliver a break through app.  In the words of Nicholas Carr “One consequence is that inventions have become less visible and transformative. We’re no longer changing the shape of the physical world or even of society. We are altering internal states, transforming the invisible self or its bodily container.”

The second interaction I had was with a person who architects a network.  He is consumer of technology, a practitioner of networking products and technology.  Our interaction was on Twitter, which in the context of Carr’s essay is ironic.  Here is the exchange which started with tweet from Plexxi.  I removed the Twitter handles as it was the tone of the interaction that is important, not the participants:

XXXXX “Direct network capacity in real time.” Smells like Unicorns. How does one do physical setup (like CLOS, etc) with Plexxi?

WR_Koss Just two cables.

XXXXX @WR_Koss I think you know that’s not what I meant ;-).

WR_Koss Oh yea…we use a mouse.

XXXXX @WR_Koss Maybe you didn’t know what I meant. I know you’re not suggesting that a large DC build out will consist of just two cables.

WR_Koss True, but DC network innovation has been dormant for a decade+ so lots of room for improvement.

XXXXX @WR_Koss Indeed.

My point in reproducing this exchange is to highlight that even the smart, experienced people with a CV full of certifications are skeptical of innovative change when it comes to networking.  Perhaps they have been burned too many times in the past and that is why they label big ideas Unicorns.  Maybe a foundation of a thesis can be found in this micro exchange.  Why should an entrepreneur do something hard?  Why take on a hard challenge when your market is full of skeptics?  Maybe it is easier to build an online mold removal app and get some subscribers and sell your site?  Why use hard science and engineering?  We should all just stop trying to do the hard stuff and just buy the ebook version of Networking for Dummies.  I can tell you the reason why there has been little if any innovation in networking in the past decade.  It is hard and many people see no reason to wake up in the morning and embrace hard.

Bullshit is my answer.  There is value in building something tangible.  There is value is conceiving something that has never been done before.  That is called innovation.  Step two is to take your innovation to market and convince people to exchange something of value for your innovation.  When customers use your innovation and see value in it, that is the standard by which to measure one self.  Customers are the true mark of success.  That is how you build a company, create jobs, create wealth and give back to the community.  That is what America was built on; the Man in the Arena.  America was not built by the Man on the Couch.

Over the past few weeks I have been collecting some inconvenient truths that few people want to acknowledge or discuss.  I think the reasons are many: fearful of change, ignorance, denial, anger, loss, etc.  Yea, there are lot of reasons, but the good news is I meet new people every week who want to acknowledge the truth.  As a microcosm of failing to realize a broad trend I read this on Friday after the early release of earnings from one networking company “...weakness is a combination of a) macro issues and b) share loss, as competition is increasing.  [He] does not believe XXXX’s miss is indicative of continued carrier spending weakness and argues that other telco-exposed names actually begin to show signs of recovery this earnings season.”  Today, I read “XXXX’s: After yesterday’s miss and guide down…[He] is recommending investors stay out of telco-exposed names through the rest of earnings season and would prefer to revisit XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX later in the August/September timeframe — actually, the only name he is pointing people to is XXXX, as he prefers the ‘wireless’ exposure.”  A big change in three days.

Here is the problem that many analysts, pundits and participants are unwilling to acknowledge or maybe grasp.  The service provider business is becoming a Bits R US business.  That is the home of lower prices and prices are always falling.  The value has moved to the compute element inside the data center.  The people who own and operate data centers (i.e. servers), just want a managed wave or dark fiber and they will direct flows to and from the compute element.  The stuff in between is only important to the service provider.  The delivery network has decoupled from the compute element.  It does not matter if you are wireless or wired, IP is IP.

The layered protocol stack is all done.  Back in the day it was great.  It was developed to solve the internet problem within the constraints of 128kb of memory and 50 MHz processors.  Fortunately we have moved on from those constraints and today we do not need to guess the network state from the wires up – we can compute state and many states from the top down.  Indexing massive databases with MapReduce and utilizing processor power has been proven, we can certainly apply the same techniques to the network.  My thoughts on what Google was doing after Urs Holzle’s presentation at ONS 2012 are posted here.

Here is a link to an article on Infosys who reported disappointing forward guidance with the CEO stating that “…a large percent of the above $1b deals have disappeared.”  This is not a surprise to me as I wrote about it recently.  There is a significant sea change event building in the land of IT.  New techniques, technologies and regulations are enabling enterprise to own their IT again, because IT really does matter.  SDN will be the component that changes the network portion of the IT model.

SDN this and SDN that and what the killer apps for SDN!   Who cares?  The SDN use case is universal.  Riddle me this Batman…what happened to the service provider voice networks with the introduction of VoIP?  As far as I can recall, voice became pretty cheap as the carriers separated the data plane from the control plane.  For those not steeped in the difference between a Class 4 and Class 5 switch, a Class 4 switch is the control plane and the Class 5 switch is the data plane.  Did I just write about separating the data plane from the control plane?  I think I have heard that before.  Where would I have heard that before…hmmm….oh yea, SDN!  SDN is separating the control plane from the data plane; and now you know the rest of the story.