A Practical Navigator for the Internet Economy

Optical Revolution Increases Obsolescence of Legacy Carrier Networks

Highly Efficient Layer One and Two Optical Networks Will Spell End of the Road for ATT, Sprint & MCI in Their Current Form

Intelligent Acquisition Could Lead to Quick Write Offs of Obsolete Equipment
& Result in Modernization of “Telco” Infrastructure

Click Here to get the Full Report in .PDF Format
The March-April 2005 issue examines the new optical technologies being employed today in service-provider, enterprise and research and education networks around the globe.

Optical Networks Becoming Much More Affordable

Thinking about the meaning of the COOK Report’s last two months of research, I ask readers to consider whether we are headed towards optical networks owned, built and operated by enterprises and other large entities that are sources of, and/or, sinks for data, with the public Internet and carrier backbone networks merely acting as inter-connecting vehicles for private bit carriage?

Will the enterprise-owned and -operated network be one that is composed of hybrid networks that set up lightpaths when needed, and then tear them down, for certain Quality of Service and security-mandated applications? Will best-effort Layer 3 IP services for email and web browsing utilize a separate allocation of bandwidth elsewhere within the optical spectrum of physical glass? Is this new enterprise-owned optical network one that could switch lightpaths back and forth on an as-needed basis sending payloads over dedicated lightpaths where appropriate and needed, while best-effort routing continues to function on its own over intranet or Internet routes, thus filling in the gaps between highly mission-critical and business-as-usual applications?

Are enterprise nets going to get very dynamic? Will they do switched lightpaths internally, route stat-muxed traffic of routine importance and direct lambdas, when need be, to branch offices, or to suppliers, or to customers?

Large carrier networks still have a role to play. However, in their present state we argue that their role will be sharply constrained. Here is why: Ken Belson writes in the January 29, 2005 New York Times: “Despite its less impressive performance, MCI still remains a [take-over] target because other than AT&T, only MCI and Sprint have the heft to sell a full complement of phone and data services to America’s biggest corporations, particularly those that operate globally.”

While our largest carriers have what enterprises want, if these global phone companies are failing is it because, they offer the kind of service that makes sense for their own infrastructure, cash flow, debt commitment and are not organized to meet the needs of their enterprise customers? They are serving their own interests at a time when alternative sources for equal-and often more- effective services are undercutting them in price, and outperforming them in many ways by wide margins (as might be exemplified through the comparison of Ethernet over SONET versus approaches to delivering native Ethernet over WDM). What makes sense for the IXCs increasingly is not the most cost-effective course for large enterprises. Giving the enterprise the best deal possible would be detrimental to the IXCs own interests. At the same time, those who provide the aforementioned alternative sources (for example dark fiber from AboveNet) find that satisfying enterprise needs enables them to flourish, rather than merely subsist, or worse.

 

It’s not a pretty story out there for most legacy service providers these days. Consequently it is essential for them to make meeting their customers’ needs paramount in the manner in which they engineer and market their services. The only way they can do this is by radical overhaul of their infrastructures. It doesn’t take too much investigation to realize, however, that this has not happened, nor will it over a very short period of time.

So much for the service provider point of view. Turning to their enterprise customers, we find that many enterprises will not understand what they are missing if they don’t keep up to date on the changes in optical technologies. This issue of the COOK Report serves as an introduction to some new optical capabilities that are available to those enterprises for whom established carriers’ cookie cutter options may now be unduly limiting. While our IXCs are losing their consumer business both to cheaper and more efficient alternatives (including mobile), their growth capability with enterprises may be limited because they lack the flexibility to give their customers the choices they seek.

The only way for the carriers not to constrain what their enterprise customers do is to become neutral consultants who then educate enterprises on the possibilities, without trying to shove them into the Procrustean bed of their own available network infrastructures. What they have to offer enterprises is scale-based upon their network systems and fiber. However, as the changes depicted here grow apace, the most cost-effective choice for enterprisers will be tailor-made infrastructure that the enterprise owns and operates either entirely or in some hybrid manner with the infrastructures of the established carriers. The top three IXCs certainly have expertise, but the expertise they have, if used in the enterprise customer’s best interests, will depend less and less on selling access to the IXCs own rapidly outdated infrastructures. This will happen because of the IXCs pricing schemes that are based on their need to support a cost basis that is founded in yesterday’s infrastructure and the attendant ways of doing business that those infrastructures dictate.

If the enterprises have global high-capacity needs, they should have, as one of their options, the ability to get that capacity, either through leasing wavelengths or the fiber they require on an IRU basis from the global fiber nets. These providers include Level 3, Global Crossing and any one of a half dozen or more independent national fiber providers such as Abovenet (formerly MFN), LookingGlassNetworks, FiberNet, or AmericanFiberSystems. Meanwhile, what many of the larger institutions continue to do is procure their services from incumbent long haul and local service providers exclusively. The economic sense of doing this is beginning to vanish quickly for many situations that lend themselves to asset-based (i.e., customer-owned) and various forms of hybrid (leased/owned) networks. The choices they are left with are to build their own and become their own carrier or to outsource their needs to someone like an EDS or IBM that builds its own network and runs services on behalf of its customers on the resulting infrastructure.

I conclude therefore that it is now likely to be more cost effective for large enterprises to begin to build and operate portions of their own networks, going hybrid as needed, and that in the future what is true for the largest enterprises will with the passage of time grow to be true for all enterprises.

It could be that we are on the verge of seeing the consolidation that we wondered about almost a year ago. As we go to press SBC has reached a deal to buy ATT. Verizon and BellSouth will now likely pursue MCI. We suggest (having had a hint from Frank Coluccio) that if the acquisition stops there, the ILECs, will have bought a much-needed list of enterprise customers and a far greater global network reach than they could through their own organic growth. They may, nevertheless,have shot themselves in the foot. The injury will occur because they will have merely folded into place, with the same non-competitive set of circumstances we have just described. Now if, for example, SBC bought ATT and WilTel and Verizon bought MCI and Broadwing, then each LEC giant would have acquired not only thousands of enterprise customers but would also have gained a modern optical network infrastructure onto which they could move those enterprise customers in cost effective ways. Over time, that would also lessen the incentive of enterprises to seek services elsewhere or roll their own systems.

Most of the information in this issue explains the technology changes that have created the situation just described. The issue offers a detailed examination of the new optical technology that is going to force the overhaul of the large legacy IXC networks.

Advances in Optics at Layers 1 and 2

I sense that enterprise customer organizations are finally beginning to grasp on a more broad and structural level what it is that the OIF forum has been working towards, and in some parts made possible, over the past four years in the switching of lambdas. Frank Coluccio (to whom I am indebted for conversations that helped sharpen my focus and fill in gaps in my knowledge) remembers my interview with AT&T’s John Strand that I published in early 2001. Over the next 18 months that interview was unusually popular. I now understand why that was. This interview was one of the earlier pieces to explain what folks wanted to do with optics at Layer 1, and how to handle the layers atop it. Some users and carriers alike have now gone ahead what was envisioned then. They done it, moreover, with great success.

Thirteen years ago I started with the emergence of the commercial Internet and since then have petty religiously followed the “gods” of IP and “stupid network” and its end-to-end principle. There has been a lot to cover at Layer 3 and above but I am now realizing (as I begin my 14th year of publication with this issue) that there is a three or four year old revolution going on at Layers 1 and 2 . I suspect that I, along with many others, would be well-served to catch up to these ongoing changes.

IP routing over copper and rudimentary optical paths was one disruptive force for the phone companies. It forced them to begin a transition to re-inventing themselves as data network companies. The introduction of wavelength division multiplexing, and especially dense WDM in 1996 began to hollow out very rapidly the value of their copper plant. IP muxing at Layer 3 was a really good way to get huge new benefits in the connectivity of people via their phones and computers over the copper phone network. With optical transmission of IP over SONET, the carrying capacity of the data highways grew very large. Then, due to the now legendary circumstances occurring at the turn of the 21st century, the bubble reached inflated proportions - then burst. The impact on the legacy carriers - who also happened to be the largest IXCs and ILECs - was especially harsh because they had bolstered SONET and other TDM elements of their arsenals in anticipation of traffic loads that never materialized. As a consequence they were left with extreme levels of outdated, but not yet depreciated, opto-electronic systems.

Bill St. Arnaud on March 31, 2001 was among the first to grasp where the future would be. In response to a Wall Street investment bank analysis that had been made in November 2000 and hit the public mail lists in late February 2001 he said something like, and I paraphrase here: “While it was no doubt upsetting to see our favorite companies like Global Crossing going belly up, we should recognize that there was a possible silver lining.” Namely that network infrastructure would be available at fire sale prices and that as a result universities and research institutions could build and operate their own networks. He used, I believe, the image that as PCs brought the power of mainframes to the desktop, the same thing would happen with networks.

Meanwhile, in the corporate enterprise realm, capable network managers in some of the nation’s largest companies recognized the same potential to exploit newly discounted facilities and began building optical networks of their own, sometimes owned and managed outright, and sometimes under managed services or outsourcing contracts with vendors, or with some of the established carriers, themselves.

Since then, enterprises have grasped how advances in the optical equipment discussed in this issue are making it possible to realize enormous savings by collapsing what would otherwise be numerous up- routed backbone ports for lower denominations of traffic bundled into payloads over lightwaves on a point-to-point basis at Layer 1. This results in a fraction of the cost of the equipment and line rentals needed to route them individually. Once delivered, packets can be converted from optical to electrical transmission, and through the use of Layer 2 switches transmit native gigabit Ethernet streams at a fraction of the cost of routing a gigabit stream over SONET. Routing, because it is expensive, is done only where it is truly needed. As Kees Neggers points out, with this architecture SURFNet 6 can serve the research and education needs of the entire Netherlands with two large Avici routers as opposed to several dozen Cisco routers used in SURFnet 5. This issue of the COOK Report explores the changes in optical transport systems that are disrupting ever more rapidly what it means to be a carrier.

Hundreds of millions of people on the copper/fiber based PSTN will have no choice but to stay there for quite a few more years - even as VoIP continues to hollow out the voice carriers revenue. For enterprise, government and municipal networks wanting access to fiber, given the immense surplus laid down during the late 90s, they can get it and the role of the carrier becomes irrelevant in some cases. They become their OWN carriers. Some long distance fiber networks like Level 3 will survive, and may even come to flourish (as a source for intercity fiber pair IRUs or a source for the sale of intercity wavelengths, where appropriate).

For individual enterprises that reach critical mass it is fast becoming more cost effective to adopt the Layer 1 and Layer 2 optically-supported technologies described in this issue and route data at Layer 3 only when it doesn’t need to go point-to-point. Similar cost-effective strategies must be considered when speaking in terms of a geographic footprint, where line costs are still economically paramount, or the number of hops it takes to locations not fed directly by the backbone is significant. Point-to-point data transfer from sensor networks, imaging archives, process controllers - you name it - can be done very cheaply with a Layer 1 optical switch. When there is a need to capture data and store it, either on a hard drive, or send it to a user’s screen, a Layer 2 switch can make the conversion from optical to electrical. Again, comparatively expensive ROUTING at Layer 3 is used only when really necessary. The building blocks needed to do this are all falling into - or some would argue, falling “back” into, place.

The enterprise is no longer restricted to using outside data vendors like a phone company for all, or even “most” of its high capacity needs. The pieces are falling rapidly into place for the enterprise and individuals to provide these services for themselves. Under these conditions, data communications become, like the air, the enterprise employees breathe. Researchers can have as much as they require, or so it seems, for darned near anything that they like to try. The delivery of IP packets to end users that a few years ago might have been thought about as the raison d’etre of the corporate network is now much more the icing on the cake. The cake itself is made up of Layer 1 and Layer 2 optical processes.

I am beginning to conclude that if one wants to understand the economics of the entire industry that one really cannot do an adequate job by assuming that Layer 1 and Layer 2 are just there as opaque shims underneath the all important Layer 3 which is seen as the only thing that matters. To see where the entire industry is going it is necessary to bring into focus the optical revolution that has taken place over the past 10 years, including the past four or five years, in particular, and is still ongoing.
I can remember a 20 pound, four megabyte hard drive selling for about $4000 at the local Radio Shack Computer Center in 1986. Today 200 gigabytes in an external firewire drive costs about $200 dollars. One of the points worth thinking about is that bandwidth is leaving the mainframe-like centralization of the phone companies and coming, like the PC, to users at the network edge where, again like the PC, end users will be able to afford almost limitless amounts of bandwidth capacity. Sooner or later where they will control what is done with it. To understand what is happening with the industry demands, however, not a narrow centered focus on the IP layer, but of necessity, an in-depth understanding of the interworking of the new transmission technologies at Layer 1 and Layer 2 as well as Layer 3 and above. In this context, David Reed and Andy Lippman’s May 2003 Media Lab paper “Viral Networks” (which is mentioned in this issue) makes even more sense.

In the Symposium mail list during the past two months David has reacted with considerable vehemence to suggestions that network service providers should be able to constrain what their customers do. Before I came to the understanding that I have just outlined, I was taken aback. I didn’t see why David was making what seemed to be very brash statements. I think I do now understand quite well where he is coming from. Given the bandwidth-generating capabilities heading into the hands of end users, if the networks inhibit what their customers can do, the customers may bypass them and connect directly with each other.

Toward a Bandwidth Rich World

With the above conclusions in mind, the March-April 2005 issue comes in four parts. It examines the new optical technology being employed by the global Research and Education Network community. In interviews with, and a report written for us by the most important leaders in the field, (Bill St. Arnaud, Kees Neggers, Joe Mambretti, and Tom DeFanti) we summarize not the science which has been explained in detail elsewhere, but rather the new network design including the software and hardware technology that is beginning to have impacts outside the global research community.

Part One (pp.9-59) examines the technology being put in place in Canada, Holland, Chicago and globally via the Global Lambda Integrated Facility (GLIF) to enable end users to set up and tear down optical networks within, and across, autonomous system domains. The technologies encompass everything from lightpath routing through web services to new families of optical switches that can be set up to make network configuration changes easily at the lowest layer in the protocol stack.

Part Two (pp. 60-80) discusses the use of lambda switching both independently and within IP networks - explaining when switching is appropriate and for what purposes. It also points out reasons for adoption of this technology within enterprises and gives some examples of appropriate use. It concludes with discussion of the potential impact of this technology on long-haul fiber carrier business models.

Part Three (pp. 81-92) discusses NYSERNet, Opportunity Iowa, and Philadelphia’s Mesh Wireless plans from the point of view of how newer and cheaper optical and wireless technologies may adopt business models that will enable them to survive as competitive public telecommunications infrastructure.

Part Four (pp. 93 - 123) branches out to a more general discussion of regulatory and business models that will allow this technology to succeed. The long discussion between Matt Wenger (PacketFront) and Malcolm Matson (OPLAN) is the best we have seen at elaborating the details of what it will take for open access fiber networks to be run successfully by municipalities and other institutions that may choose to invest in and then actually build and operate them.

The overarching theme of all these developments is that two orders of magnitude decreases in the cost of optical components plus the development of highly flexible and affordable technologies for the configuration and operation of optical networks means that there is a process underway whereby (just as with the advent of the PC 20 years ago), the enormous bandwidth of optical networks is migrating from the huge vertically integrated telco and cable companies outward to the edges of locally owned and operated, municipal and enterprise networks. Combining this with high bandwidth point-to-point wireless networks, where optical data flows may be easily transferred to millimeter unlicensed RF transmission, lends further impetus to what is now a growing ability of enterprises and municipalities to roll and operate their own networks.

Open Access in More Detail

Another major lesson is brought home by the optical technology discussed in this two-month issue. Data networks are no longer limited to the status of esoteric enterprise functions, or even frills. They have become, instead, pieces of infrastructure as necessary for the functioning of modern society as sewers, highways and electricity.

For a century we have had the telephone network as a regulated monopoly. When digital and packet switched technology made it possible to introduce competition, we did so. But we have faltered on seeing the inexorable logic that means that the new data networks must be run for the good of the communities they serve and not solely for the economic benefit of the stockholders of the monopoly local phone company or cable operator.

It used to be undeniable that the cost of a telephone network was so great as to be beyond the means of an individual community just as the cost of a mainframe computer was too high for every homeowner. As we now have the equivalent of mainframes in every household, it is becoming feasible for every town to build its own optical data network infrastructure. To make this point in a manner that everyone can relate to, the average end user of cable modem Internet connectivity today has access to more downstream bandwidth than a typical branch banking office did just a decade ago.

But as computing is decentralized, so are data networks and we can no longer afford to allow one vested interest to dictate how a local network is structured and who can see services. Just as with PC architectures, the local data buses must be open to ALL comers. In this issue we illustrate how ever more affordable it is becoming for every town and city to begin to run its own telecommunications system. Increasingly they are becoming much more plug–and-play, and with mesh architecture capable of supporting an infrastructure at the local loop that is independent of the telephone company. It won’t happen overnight, but if David Reed and Andy Lippman’s May 17 2003 paper “Viral Communications” is correct, the future of the vertically integrated, monopolistic network services provider is dim. New technology can make them irrelevant. Readers are well advised to download this paper at http://dl.media.mit.edu/viral/viral.pdf

In the meantime, proposed business models for open access community-owned broadband networks are being refined. This issue presents an outstanding debate into the nuances of how to work with a community that wants its own network and do so in a way that the community investment will become a self-sustaining business in the shortest period of time.

Malcolm Matson, the founder of Colt industries in the UK in the late 1980s has spent the last two decades honing the concept of an OPLAN. Matson’s ideas have been discussed in earlier issues. In this issue (during the month of December) Matson got into an extended and fruitful debate with Matt Wenger of PacketFront. That debate runs in detail from page 100 through 117 of this issue. We have summarized it with our own comments on pages 144-148.

People are beginning to realize that municipal networks take very careful planning if they are to succeed. Complex issues reside at every layer of the protocol stack. The debate between Matson and Wenger with comments from other Symposium members captures their complexity quite well.
Matson says that OPLANs are islands of local connectivity without the need for any OPLAN to connect outside its local boundaries. If someone in an OPLAN wants to connect to the outside world Matson says fine let him do so. The OPLAN doesn’t peer with the outside world; individuals who connect with each other via the OPLAN make the decision about connecting to the outside world on their own behalf and no one else’s.
The OPLAN that Matson suggests seems ideologically rigid in the sense that it takes a logical end goal (no service provider) and applies it to the basic foundation premise, assuming that the OPLAN will some how start out that way and run on some kind of self regulating auto-pilot right from the very beginning. Some one to make the OPLAN practical will have to connect to the outside and to assume those interests will run right from the get go, smoothly on a self-generating auto-pilot seems unlikely.

Matson adds: "OPLANs will be owned by financial institutions (like commercial real estate) and managed by outsourced contracts to special maintenance companies (like commercial real estate)."
But I would only ask how the “special maintenance company” differs from the more specialized service provider? OPLAN is an interesting concept and has some similarities to Matt Wenger’s well thought out open access network models several of which have been built and are operating. The first OPLAN is to be built in 2005. Real life experience we think is likely to alter the concept, but exactly how remains to be seen.

Contents

New Optical & Customer Owned Networks May Offer Private Network Operators Alternatives to Carriers -- Failure of Deregulation to Bring Competition to Stranglehold of Last Mile May also Create Focus on Support Structure Access p. 1

Part One
Some Major Research Optical Networks
p. 9

UCLP Designed to Allow Networks to Interconnect Without Carrier
in the Middle Canarie’s Bill St. Arnaud Explains an Optical Switch Partition Manager Designed to Reach Across Network Boundaries p. 10

SURFnet 6 & Nortel to Bring Combination Dynamic Optical & IP
Network to Holland Kees Neggers Explains Complementary Role
Where New Network to Focus on Dynamic Reconfiguration at Layer 1 & 2 p. 20

Optical Technology Advances Enable Layer 1-2 Data Transmission with
Fewer Protocols -- Joe Mambretti Says Agile Optical Networks Permit
Customer Run Networks Increased Flexibility & Performance at Lower Cost p. 33

Symposium Discussion –

Discussion of UCLP in its Web Services Context Symposium Group Also Examines Origins and General Use of Network Signaling Technology as Well as Declining Cost of Optical Applications p. 40

UCLP as Middleware p. 41
UCLP Hardware Demands p. 42
Customer Owned Fiber Networks in Australia and New York State p. 43
Commoditization of Networks p. 44
Of Water Mains and Fiber Loops p. 45
UCLP Predecessors p. 46
Building Ad Hoc Optical Wireline Networks Without Carriers p. 48
RFC 1306 For On Demand “By Request” Connectivity p. 50
Lambda Switching p. 52

TransLight Emerging as an Optical Web to Interconnect Research Networks of Asia, North America and Europe

By Tom DeFanti - who acknowledges the collaboration of Joe Mambretti, Ron Johnson,
John Silvester and Maxine Brown (US Portion of TransLight Funded on Jan 31, 2005) p. 55

Part Two
Lambda Switching Technical Discussion New Optical Technologies in Enterprise Networks p. 59

Lambda Switching
Technical, Operational And Economic Issues Found in the Integration
of Layer One and Two Switching With IP Routing p. 60


Network Congestion p. 61
A Wish List from Working with a Shovel at Layer Zero p. 62
Optical Networking Used to Increase Richness of IP Meshing Between End Points p. 63
Wireless Quilts p. 67

Impact of the New Optical Switching Technologies on Enterprise and
Carrier Networks p. 70

Lambda Switching for Banking Networks? p. 70
“Optical VPNs: Keeping data out of harm’s way” p. 71
Some Elaboration of the Dynamic Network Components p. 73
France Telecom North America Outsources Light Paths to Level 3 p. 74
Property Rights in the Purchase of Lambda’s versus Dark Fibers p. 75
Economics of Inter City Fiber p. 76
What Remains as the Business Model of Long Haul Fiber Owners? p. 76
The Future of Long Haul p. 77
Whither ATT, MCI and Sprint? p. 78
Long Haul Nets Business Model to Become Open Access to All? p. 79

Part Three
Two new Optical Nets and one Muni Net p. 81

NYSERNet’s New Optical Network New Equipment Makes Possible
Lambda Switching for New York State Research and Education
Institutions p. 82

NYSERNet Similar To CA*Net4 in Concept and Design. p. 82
Opportunity Iowa Fiber Build Out Plans and Possible Business Model Discussed by CTO Thomas Hertz and Symposium Members p. 84
The Muni Wireless Controversy Continues in Pennsylvania and
Elsewhere p. 89
Pennsylvania Muni Wireless Verizon Wins, Pennsylvania Loses p. 89
Ideas for Pro Muni Legislation p. 92
The Two Faces of SBC p. 92

Part Four
Organization of and Business Models for Open Access Networks p. 93

Open Access and Network Neutrality -- Ascertaining What
Regulatory and Business Models Will Make End User or Community Owned Broadband Networks Possible p. 94

 

Powell’s Four Freedoms p. 95
Legislating Security or Legitimacy? p. 96
The Network Is in NO Position to Make Value Judgments p. 97
An Open Access Network Operator Should Never Compete with Its Customers p. 100
Customer-Owned Networks and the Future Role of the Carriers p. 105
Without a Taxonomy Meanings Are Blurred p. 107
Milimeter Wireless Nets of Up to Ten Gig Increase Ownership Possibilities p. 107
OPLAN Has No Delineation BetweenService Providers and Everyone Else p. 108
Is Telco Cable Co CompetitionPutting Such Artificially Low Prices on Broadband as to Render Community Nets Non Sustainable? p. 117
Access to Support Structures or "Layer Zero" p. 118
Is Traffic on the Public Internet Now Less Than a Majority of IP Traffic Globally? p. 121

Highlights p. 124

Specially Edited Open Access Discussion p. 144

Introduction & Executive Summary

Optical “Tech” Revolution Rendering Legacy Carrier
Architectures Even More Obsolete --
Highly Efficient Optical Networks May Spell End of the Road for ATT & MCI in Their Current Form
Intelligent Acquisition Could Lead to Quick Write Offs of Obsolete Equipment & Result in Modernization of “Telco”
Infrastructure p. 148

Side Bar

Side Bar: A More Abstract
Debate about Market Philosophies p. 101

Symposium and Interview Contributors to this Issue

Affiliation given for purposes of identification - views expressed are those of the contributors alone

Jim Baller, Partner in Baller Herbst law firm & Expert on Municiple Networks
Frank Coluccio, President DTI Consulting, NYC, high-capacity optical netw'k consultant
Melissa Davis, optical network architect with RS Information Systems
Tom DeFanti, Director Center for Advanced Visualization, University of illinois Chicago
Jim Forster, Distinguished Engineer, Cisco
Vijay Gill, Director Peering, America on Line
Tom Hertz, CTO, Opportunity Iowa
Dave Hughes, owner Old Colorado City Communications and wireless advocate
Tim Lance, President of NYSERNet
Jon Lebkowsky, Principal Polycot Consulting, Austin Texas
Tony Li, Router Architect at Cisco, Juniper and Procket, recently returned to Cisco
Joe Mambretti, Director International Center for Advanced Internet Research, Northwestern University
Malcom Matson, British entrepreneur and Director of OPLAN Foundation
Francois Menard, Canadian policy expert and municipal fiber network architect
Kees Neggers, Director, SURFnet 6
Andrew Odlyzko, Director Digital Technology Center, University of Minnesota
Dave O’Leary, Juniper Networks
David Reed, Internet pioneer, spectrum policy expert, currently with Media Lab & HP
Larry Roberts, Arpanet pioneer and CEO, Anagran
Jere Retzer Sr Mgr, Next Generation Networks, Oregon Health & Science University
Ron Sege, CEO, Tropos Networks
Bill St Arnaud, Director Ca*Net4 , Canarie, Canada
Jeff Sterling, Interconnected Associates, Bellevue, Washington
Darin Wayrynen, CTO GoodNet, Former VP Enginering Winstar, current ISP operator
Matt Wegner, Product Manager North America, PacketFront
Rodney Wilson Director, Collaboration & Partnerships, Office of the CTO, Nortel