Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows

[<sgorman1 () gmu edu>]

Sean makes a good point about the importance of the quality of data, 
but the question is how can good data be made available for research.  
We've covered this ground before, that firms are not going to make 
data available.  There are better data sets that have become recently 
available from a few sources, and hopefully improved analysis will 
result.

That said a few things should be kept in mind with academic work.  The 
time from when work is done until it appears in publication is quite 
legthy, especially when peer reviewed (the Grubesic et al article was 
peer reviewed).  I saw his paper presented in the Fall of 2001, which 
means he probably did the research in the spring of 2001, and the 
latest data available was Boardwatch 2000.  so, you end with a lag in 
Internet time that seems horrendous.  One of the problems with 
academia.  I do think it is important to think about the best 
contributions from academia providing tools (algorithm's etc.) to 
analyze data and view issues from a different perspective.  We will 
never have the quality of data the operations community has.

That said I think it is vital to get good feedback from the operations 
communtiy on our assumptiopns and something this forum has been great 
with helping with from my experience.  I was curious if we put some 
recent research online if folks would be interested in providing 
feedback.  

Happy holidays,

sean


----- Original Message -----
From: Sean Donelan <sean () donelan com>
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows

> On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 sgorman1 () gmu edu wrote:
> > The full paper is available at:
> >
> > http://whopper.sbs.ohio-state.edu/grads/tgrubesi/survive.pdf
> >
> > password: grubesic
> >
> > It was posted on the www.cybergeography.org website with the 
> password,> plus I'm sure Tony would like the feedback.
>
> Was this paper peer reviewed ?
>
> I'm interested in the problem, but this is not the paper.
>
> AT&T's network is the most vulnerable? While Onyx is among the least
> vulnerable?  Onyx is bankrupt, and their network is no longer in
> operation. I guess you could argue Onyx not vulnerable any more.  
This
> paper starts out with some bad assumptions, such as there is one 
> NAP in a
> city, one path between cities or the marketing maps in Boardwatch are
> meaningful.
>
> Until we figure out how to collect some meaningful starting data, we
> can't draw these types of conclusions.