Re-Posted from 03/10/10 at 1:32pm from Zacks
US telecom behemoth AT&T (T) reported that it has successfully completed a real-time field trial of 100-Gigabit Ethernet technology, a next-generation backbone network standard. The technology is expected to be available commercially over the next few years. 

In the trial, AT&T tested Cisco’s (CSCO) newly unveiled CRS-3 core router in a live network environment. Moreover, the carrier used leading IP network test solution provider Ixia’s (XXIA) “K2″ 100-gigabit Ethernet test solution and Opnext’s optical equipment. The trial demonstrated a single-carrier 100-gigabit data transmission on a 900-kilometer ultra-long-haul transport link between New Orleans, Louisiana and Miami, Florida.

The 100-gigabit standard supports a data rate of 100 gigabits per second (Gbps), representing a significant increase from the current peak speeds of 40 Gbps enabled by the existing industry standard of 40-gigabit Ethernet. The technology has been designed to effectively support the burgeoning volumes of wireless and wireline broadband data traffic.

Leading carriers across the globe are increasingly focused on accelerating Internet network speeds, given the rapidly growing demand for greater bandwidth. Total bandwidth consumption significantly increased in 2009, driven by the growth of video and other high-bandwidth applications.

100 Gbps networks have emerged as the next major Ethernet standard. Demand for 100 Gbps service in enterprise data centers is ten times greater than the existing fastest deployments. At this speed level, users can enjoy super fast data transmission speeds, which can transmit a 2-hour high-definition movie in 9 seconds or fully loaded 500-gigabyte hard drive in 46 seconds.

AT&T’s trial follows a similar live trial by Verizon (VZ), which was recently conducted using Juniper’s (JNPR) core router and NEC America Inc’s network routes in North Dallas, Texas. Verizon is optimistic in deploying the 100 Gb technology in late 2010.

The ongoing initiative to deploy 100 Gbps capability should render greater overall network efficiency while improving cost effectiveness. Additionally, this advancement will enable AT&T to address increasing customer demand for higher network throughput for both wireless and wired Internet applications.

Intelletrace ordered a traditional private MPLS backbone.  We didn’t want any Internet, we didn’t want anything special.   All of the sites were a single T-1 with a single site being a 2xT1 at 3Mbps.  All routing was BGP with a unique private ASN at each location.  Sounds fairly simple? It seemed to me as well.

How does XO provision MPLS?
XO likes to deploy each link in one of two ways.  The first is PPP or MPP if you need to bond two links together.  The second is using frame relay protocol. One DLCI is your MPLS the second is an Internet connection.  This is nice option if you want it, but we didn’t.  Each site has a Public interface IP address.  This IP address is not accessible from the outside because it is within a VRF.  XO is willing to accommodate the unique ASN at each site but the default is the same ASN at each site.

How was this network deployed?
Lets see, I can sum it up in one word WRONG.  We found that our Project Coordinator of Service Delivery Account  Manager had placed processed the order incorrectly after it was specified incorrectly by the Sales Engineer.  We asked to see the network deployment document (An excel Spreadsheet) and found many issues incorrect.  We addressed them with her. Obviously she they knew better than we and didn’t address the issues.  (Edited for Accuracy 2-24-10)

1. Each site was configured with Frame-Relay even though there was no Internet connection at ANY site.
2. The 2xT1 we ordered had two /30 networks on it. Can you say WHY?
3. Every site had the same ASN.
4. BGP was not configured (no routing protocol was configured, not even static)

To our dismay the network was in the process of deployment before we confirmed the deployment document.   We tried to address the issues yet again and were told that this is how it was suppose to be.  We immediately requested the install engineer to help clarify.  The same engineer we spoke with before we placed the order and said all of our requests were no problem.  He reviewed the setup and stated that it wasn’t what we had intended from the beginning and he would help submit a change order.  In fact he stated he would do it himself.    He created the change order and the new network deployment document.  Intelletrace reviewed it and approved it.  PPP or MPP on each interface   Single /30 on the 2xT1 and a unique ASN at each site.   WOW that was easy.  Again one word PREMATURE!

Upon deployment we found that XO uses an AUTO provisioning tool. During our deployment of the ORIGINAL configuration it was stopped and didn’t finish.  Our change order required a MANUAL update of each site.  Greg F.  If you read this AWSOME JOB!  You at least restored my faith in the XO Install Engineering Team, even if Service Delivery the Account Rep’s and the Dispute Department are a severe let down.    Every dispute gets an immediate deny.  We believe the first level dispute individual we deal with only has the power to deny and uses it with pride. I can create an auto responder to state “no”. It takes us escalating to VP level on every occurrence to resolve disputes.  Come on XO where is your common sense.  (Edited for Accuracy 2-24-10)

Our Accout Executive Eric W.  Is an individual that helped us navigate the painful process of resolving the dispute process.  Without him coordinating the proper people we would probably still be dealing with the dispute.  (Added 2-24-10 )

The next note of mention is even if you have a dispute in, XO will threaten to shut you off.  I was going to put in a valid dispute, however per our first level dispute person at XO no dispute is valid.  None the less after months of process and many man hours it was resolved with us getting a full credit as we had submitted it.

Summary:
The Technical Expertise at XO is at the top of the list.  I have a second issue we are working on now regarding a Point to Point Ethernet circuit I am waiting to see how it resolves before I write about that one.  So far it has been similar issues.  XO Dispute department, I am trying to find a word or series of words that are not severely degrading.  I can’t find any that express my full opinion that is appropriate for this forum,  so it is just better left at that.

Results of this Post: ( Addded 2-24-10)
Our president was contacted by XO to address this specific blog post.  I think this is great.  XO does seem to care what their customers say.  A meeting was requested by XO.  I will post their comments, if they don’t comment directly on this post, and the results of the the conversation.

Update as of 3-8-10:
Nothing to report.  No Meeting, no talk. No further interest in this from XO.

Update as of 3-23-10
David G. Sales Director of XO Communications came to visit with us to discuss issues Intelletrace has experienced with XO.   The meeting was not only productive, but in my opinion very productive.  We identified issues that Intelletrace could of done better and where XO could of done better.  The end result was due to a breakdown in communications.  Starting with the incorrect form being filled out by Intelletrace.  We were unaware that it was incorrect but it was incorrect regardless.  The project coordinator should be getting more information to properly identify if what the customer is verbally asking for matches which forms should be submitted.

Finally we learned that XO has two types of SLA credits.  The first is if it meets the Written SLA exactly.  Second is, Yes, it deserves an SLA credit but is on the fringe or is interpreted differently. To our understanding if you fall in the second category your initial request must be denied.  This seems frustrating to me.  We have requested to have SLA denials accompanied with a reason for denial.  We haven’t been promised it would be accommodated but we were told they would make every effort.  We commend the effort to acknowledge the issue and hope that our input will help streamline the process within XO.

Every computer user utilizes energy.  If it is not the laptop or web enabled phone battery, it is in the datacenter that the computers connect to.  This technology being released by bloom energy is another possible technology to lower our cost of computing.   Data centers take an enormous amount of energy.  Normally I would ignore such hype as this however it is reported this is in production with Google and EBay for over a year. 

In the data center I have toyed with the idea of running a turbine off of natural gas taking the heat of the turbine through a converter to create Cold water, and then run that cold water through all of the various CRAC (Computer Room Air Conditioner) units.  This is unique because it does not burn the hydrocarbon but it does use it.  It produces half of the carbon dioxide a normal power plant does when producing a similar amount of energy.  The big barrier is cost.  If the cost can be dropped significantly we have just found that product to help reduce one of the highest costs in the internet economy, Power.

For the home user, I see an additional cost savings.  Fuel cells create heat.  Route your pipes away from the hot water heater and through this.  Could it be the tank less water heater on steroids?

There is a countdown for the news release at Bloomenergy. 

The 60 Minutes interview is here in its entirety including a video’s.

On Monday, Verizon Wireless announced its entry into the market for femtocells, small home cell sites expressly designed to allow mobile phones to place calls within a 5000 Square foot radius.  This creates a Mini Cell Site.

Verizon’s “Network Extender” device is priced at $249.99, a flat fee that will not be supplemented – or subsidized – by any monthly pricing. The device is manufactured by Samsung.

Sprint also provides a similar device, the Airrave, while T-Mobile’s HotSpot@Home uses Wi-Fi to connect its handsets. To date, AT&T has not announced a femtocell offering, but is currently testing 3G MicroCell.

Verizon uses the home’s broadband connection as a backhaul, essentially translating the cellular call into a VOIP connection. Who needs it? People in rural areas that may live on the outskirts of a cell site. One drawback: EV-DO is not supported, including those services that depend on it.

Using the Network Extender doesn’t incur additional monthly charges, however, users will be charged against their plan, in minutes, for any calls they make.

The service is open to Verizon customers as well as Family Share Plan members, the company said. But Verizon customers can also use a built-in management program on the Wireless Network Extender to prevent neighboring Verizon subscribers from placing unauthorized calls.

The Wireless Network Extender will be available from Verizon Wireless stores and through its Web site, the company said.

I am on the fence on this one.  Being a parent I see the benefit of me subscribing to a service or service provider that filters its content so I don’t need to or know how to.  Products that come to mind are Cyber Sitter, Net Nanny or equivalent..  On the other hand, I believe in education.  I need to teach my children about the internet.  There may be situations I need access to information out there that may be blocked for my children not for me. 

Is it possible to get both? I think yes. I don’t think service providers should block content without letting me know in advance.  This is so I can decide if their service is good for me.  If they are going to offer this service, let people know, or offer two types of services.  Let the free market decide.  I don’t have a problem with them prioritizing traffic, or de-prioritizing traffic as the case might be.  I dont mind them requiring you to relay your outbound mail through their server.  I think those help the net in general and it is the obligation of the provider to protect them self.

Intelletrace Offers Dedicated (unshared no aggregation) direct internet access to the internet.  This is how I believe it should be done, this is what we advertise.  This is what we do. 

Why this blog?  this is a post from the Washington Post regarding the following article.

FCC looks at ways to assert authority over Web access

As a recent court hearing and industry opposition have cast doubt on its power over Web service providers.
The FCC, which regulates public access to telephone and television services, has been working to claim the same role for the Internet. The stakes are high, as the Obama administration pushes an agenda of open broadband access for all and big corporations work to protect their enormous investments in a new and powerful medium.
“This is a pivotal moment,” said Ben Scott, director of policy at the public interest group Free Press. The government wants to treat broadband Internet as a national infrastructure, he said, like phone lines or the broadcast spectrum. But federal regulators are grappling with older policies that do not clearly protect consumers’ access to the Web, their privacy or prices of service.
The issue may have reached a turning point last week when a federal appeals court questioned the limits of the FCC’s authority in a 2008 case involving Comcast. The agency had ordered the Internet and cable giant to stop blocking subscribers’ access to the online file-sharing service BitTorrent. But in an oral hearing last Friday, three judges grilled an FCC lawyer over whether the agency had acted outside the scope of its authority.
The appeals court is still hearing the case, but analysts predict that the FCC will lose and that the ruling could throw all of its efforts to oversee Internet access into question. A loss could undermine the legality of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s push for policies that would prohibit service providers from restricting customers’ access to legal Web content — the concept known as net neutrality — and throw into doubt the agency’s ability to oversee pricing and competition among Internet service providers.