[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nanog
Subject:    Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 52, Issue 74
From:       "carl gough [mobsource]" <carl () mobsource ! com>
Date:       2012-05-30 3:29:24
Message-ID: CBEBCBB2.351B9%carl () mobsource ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>John, I think we have cross wires, without meaning to advertise or tout
>for business, the bandx solution and the enron solutions totally missed
>the mark in terms of timing.

Every revolution, wether electricity, steam, automotive or telecoms, goes
through a boom, then a bust, then a golden age period that emerges where
it matures, we are in  a maturity period now of IT. The names above, came
at a time when the boom and subsequent bust occurred, they were not around
for the golden age - fast forward to now, over a decade later since bandx,
and you have the pieces of the puzzle that can be re assembled using the
right technology. We donšt differentiate using technology anymore, we get
creative with the way we use iT.

70% of the worlds capacity is unlit, untouched, and creating no value
whatsoever - 

http://mobsource.tumblr.com/post/22890631023/bandwidth-trading-platform-liv
e


>Message: 7
>Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 19:46:08 -0500
>From: John Kristoff <jtk@cymru.com>
>To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
>Cc: "carl gough \[mobsource\]" <carl@mobsource.com>, nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: trading bandwidth
>Message-ID: <20120529194608.74e83eb6@localhost>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>On Tue, 29 May 2012 15:10:04 -0700
>Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the concept was first introduced by MCI and Enron to great
>> fanfare and subsequent graphic demonstrations of the destructive
>> power of unregulated markets controlled by people of limited moral
>> fortitude.
>
>I thought those big organizations actually came in later.  Here is an
>article discussing Band-X, which was one of at least two as I recall
>that predated some of some of those more well known, later entrants:
>
>  http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/11772/
>
>John
>
>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]