• Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Previous

Next

Internet2 Upgrade Will Let Researchers Share Data Faster

April 14, 2011, 7:14 pm

A new network under development by Internet2 will give researchers at member colleges and other participating institutions up to 10 times more bandwidth—making it easier and faster to share large data sets.

The Internet2 network now allows users to transfer up to 10 gigabits per second. The new network will bring that up to 100 gigabits per second. The key to the speed increase will be capacity, organizers say. That means it will carry more data at any given time than the group’s present backbone network, and that will reduce congestion.

“The really heavy users in the network, the researchers, are going to be the first people that recognize the benefit,” says Chris Robb, network operations manager at Internet2.

Roughly two thirds of the funding for the $97-million project comes from federal stimulus funds announced last summer to expand broadband access nationally.

A coast-to-coast network that will connect New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Sunnyvale, Calif., is expected to be finished this summer, Mr. Robb says, with connecting networks to come soon after.

He says Internet2′s national network connects with various regional networks across the country to expand access to hospitals, K-12 schools, and police and fire departments. Many of these regional networks have also received stimulus funds to enhance their capacity, which will allow them to handle the extra bandwith provided by the Internet2 network.

The network will be built using existing lines owned by Level 3 Communications, based in Broomfield, Colo.

Both Internet2 and Level 3 will monitor the fiber-optic network to protect against outages. Recently, the Internet was shut off in Georgia and Armenia when a Georgian woman allegedly severed a fiber-optic cable, thinking it was copper wire.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • 11167997

    What’s remarkable about this study, as it was about the authors’ 2002 study, is the complete absence of two common sense earnings-impact variables: (a) whether the student earned one or more graduate degrees (and which ones), and (b) student major. These should strike any responsible researcher of this topic as material at least for discussion, and, if one chooses to ignore them in statistical models, to have the decency to tell readers why. If Berg and Kreuger determine that some other variable(s) are proxies for graduate degrees and major, or subsume graduate degrees and major, then they should at least tell us so and justify their decision. Otherwise, there is something funny going on here, and however interesting the rest of the analysis and its methodology, it’s not worthy of consideration.

  • arrive2__net

    SAT score was a better predictor than attendance at a highly selective college for the general population, so a cohort of graduates from of a highly selective college may seem to be making more money, but only where the SAT-level in not statistically controlled. If everyone who attends a college is brilliant (as measured by SAT), the resulting high pay scales can seem to be a function of the college, but it is actually a function of the brilliance (as measured by SAT). So apparently if you are a brilliant student (defined by SAT score), then attending a less selective college will not necessarily hold you back in income.

    It seems to me that therefore workplace and career achievement and competition are likely to be a bigger factor in determining long term income than college selectivity. The highly selective colleges will have a curtailment of range in SAT scores, maybe if their students had a greater range of SAT scores the selective-college boost would then be obvious, but since the colleges are highly selective there are no such students.

    Since Black and Hispanic students do get a selective-college boost, it would seem that the highly-selective college stamp of approval may open doors for them that a regular college degree can’t.

    Bernard Schuster
    Arrive2.net
    Twitter.com/arrive2_net

  • old nassau’67

    Observations:
    1. A control group is impossible, since the same students could not also attend “less selective” colleges, and then be compared to their selves who went to “highly selective ones.
    2. “highly selective” means, in part, selecting students not out to maximize their future earnings.
    3. As George Will notes today in the Washington Globe, “This academic year (2011), 16 percent of Princeton’s seniors and 18 percent of Harvard’s applied to join Teach for America….two-thirds stay in teaching”. Teaching = choosing one way to lower the average alum’s income.

  • 609zr

    Have Katehi and Lozano been fired yet?

  • 22258596

    Middlebury?