Internet2 provides the capabilities and services that my organization needs.

• The Internet2 organization has always been helpful with resources and new ideas.

• we use it as a 'fat pipe' almost exclusively

• Decisions are made on network expansion and initiatives that raise our costs. The decisions are driven by only a few and made without our participation or knowledge. In addition, the pricepoint for I2 connection remains relatively high when compared to my University's perception of advantages. Few faculty and researchers need the network. The Quilt has offered significant price point advantages for commodity internet. And, we are extremely pleased with our provider. NLR is of interest to one (1) researcher, but the price is too high.

• Internet2 has provided excellent support for local initiatives as well as national projects. I2 initiatives have been helpful. For example, the I2 developed the Multicast & IPv6 workshops. I2 has been supportive of the Northern Tier Collaborative.

• Much of research and instruction involves collaboration with peers at other institutions. Internet2 allows for interaction in a focused environment. The supporting programs and information are sources for outside perspectives.

• We will use what we learn about I2 and develop prof. development activities for K-12 educators

• Our use of our 45 Mb I2 circuit is about 50%. When our higher capacity (Lariat) circuit comes up additional, higher-bandwidth applications will be enabled.

• The difficulty, which is improving, are finding sites for connecting to people we want to include in projects when they don't have I2.

• High bandwidth and IPv6 connectivity

• Middleware discussion, K-20 initiatives, and professional networking...as well as high speed network access

• [Our state network] acts as the ISP for the schools, libraries and municipalities in [our state]. As such, I2 is important for collaborative projects that require I2 participation for our subscribers.

• K20 Initiative was a great idea - to bring together Internet2 members and innovators from primary and secondary schools, libraries, and museums. As a result of this working group relationships have been formed across the country to promote collaborative projects and accelerate the use of content providers such as the Library of Congress. This is evidenced by the increase number of K20 people attending the I2 meetings.

• The interaction with other R1 Universities and like activities is nice. The questions are; how the advanced applications progress, how and to what degree Abilene continues to be a benefit verses commodity networks, how the merger occurs with both Abilene and NLR maintaining a clear mission and goals.

• We use Abilene to distribute Space Station science telemetry to individual PI's at various universities.

• Internet2 Commons, Technical Colleague Bob Riddle to talk to...

• We need fewer "facilitators" and more "doers." I would like to see I2 running useful bootstrap services - e.g., have stuff operating an InQueue server, middleware enabled mailing lists, collaboration software etc. Use would be by working groups and planning groups, and could be used to demonstrate advanced applications on campuses without having to install the entire infrastructure yourself just to do the demonstration.

• We want Internet2 connectivity in our new Education Center (now under construction; Dec. 05 completion) for our 180-seat auditorium and video-conferencing suite. As a nonprofit art museum, we have found the costs to be prohibitive; not just actual fiber link connectivity but the annual $50K fees MAX charges for us to get on (we are located in Washington, DC). Accordingly, we may have to select a less-expensive, less-desired alternative.

• Educational and research services and support

• Although as a young, fast growing university we have not had staff available to participate in many I2 working groups yet, there is a lot of valuable work being done in those groups and we hope to increase participation in the future.

• I2 also provides services that I don't need.

• The Internet2 participation has been great for determining product direction for the R&E market. Participation at the I2 conferences and Joint Techs conferences have been extremely useful.

• This question is too general and has no context.

• Too much focus away from providing network services

• Internet2 utilization at [our university] has been very low. This is in part explained by the lack of an Engineering College at [our university] and the type of core research [our] researchers perform. Marketing I2 at [our university] has been a challenge.

• The most important service is the provision of high speed networking.

• Middleware efforts are more about *coordination* than actual services. That is a valuable function. Re: Abilene and connectivity, commodity internet is getting closer and it is less clear that there is defining value in the cost model for Abilene IP connectivity.

• It is absolutely critical to the University of Idaho (a relatively rural, high-intensity research university) to have high-bandwidth connectivity to the outside world via Internet2

• I2 has done a good job of aggregating demand for high performance bandwidth.

• The only use to date for Internet2 is for large exchange of data. We do not use it for anything more elaborate.

• Internet2 does two things for us. First it provides a valuable shared IP service and SEGP connectivity for [our state]. Second, it has done a good job building community around issues that matter to us.

• Abilene is a key resource, and the I2 Member Meetings, Joint Techs Meetings, and various working groups are tremendously useful.

• Mild concern that much happens within small circles within Internet2 and that regular, participating members can be left in the dark until after decisions have been made.

• Meets our present needs, but we're a NLR participant because it's not clear about I2's ability to meet future needs

• The activities, development efforts, etc. are genuine and relevant for the most part. One concern I have is the commitment amongst the membership to head into the various architectural directions.

• At first, and to a degree still, faculty understood Internet2 in terms of its enabling applications in specific areas of research and education. But those of us with major responsibility, especially myself as Executive Liaison Officer, have become involved and participated in national I2 events more targeted workshops having to do with Middleware, PKI, CAMP MED, Authentication/Identity Management, and Network Security workshops to underscore the prime value of Internet2 as the crucial engineering infrastructure for advanced networking research, education, and outreach. Hence we have been active university wide in research and education projects requiring real-time collaboration with universities and institutions beyond our campus as well as recognizing the importance difference that greater bandwidth and high performance connectivity makes in advancing research and education projects already underway. Concerning Internet2 applications, I have worked with campus colleagues on examples drawn from NLANR, NEXTiNET, CRISP, and international ones such as CERN and CANARIE to mention a major ones. Still, some faculty and administrators question whether these applications in areas such as magnetism constitute real innovations or more research advances in established areas. The lack of telemedicine applications poses challenges in working with Medical College partners. On balance, however, Internet2 and its high performance connectivity has made a widespread and positive impact at [our university] and with its W/Lan. Talking with faculty on large research campuses, I find it surprising that many, to say the least, claim never having heard of Internet2.

• We are primarily interested in the opportunities to collaborate on Internet2 health sciences and K20 initiatives.

• I believe that we need to "push the envelope" of networking more, as NLR is proposing to do. I believe that there are national, economic benefits to be accrued by the US being leader in networking in the world, and I feel that the limitations imposed upon Abilene by Qwest have not allowed this objective to be met.

• [Our corporation] is involved in many different initiatives, many of which fit into what I2 is working on. We've been able to collaborate on several technical projects, and are just starting to increase marketing activities, which is a positive sign.

• It provides a subset of what we'd like, but certainly doesn't address the breadth we need.

• Future needs may increase - We are very interested in the proposed merger of Internet2 and the NLR.

• (1) I2 Commons video-conferencing (2) Middleware collaboration, best practices (3) Meetings and contacts, both technical and organizational

• Internet2 is very expensive for the limited return our University gets on its investment.

• The communication services provided (access to high speed international research network) is very good. Less clear the value vs. the overhead of some of the other I2 services.

• access to Internet 2 on campus has been adequate to the needs of our university in the areas of research and instruction

• It provides the collaborative space needed to do research and teaching with sister institutions

• We require high bandwidth with QOS for video based applications that are just coming on stream. Most such applications have a long "gestation" period to mature to the point where faculty will use them in their teaching and research. Multicast, not enabled on the commodity internet, is becoming more popular as video and audio applications are developed. Some faculty are interested in multipoint conferencing and have tried connecting several multicast computers together with some success. Part of Internet2's difficulties stem from the confusion associated with the name of the organization. People think it actually is the Internet network, but in fact it's an organization and Abilene is the network. This makes it very hard to get traction for ideas that I try to sell to middle and upper management. At one point I simply gave up and agreed that Internet2 was the network and left it at that, even though I knew it would cause problems later. While I don't favor a name change for the organization at this late date, perhaps Abilene could be renamed "Internet2", since that's what most people think is the case anyway.

• We have been very impressed with the ongoing communication and wide scope of initiatives under I2.

Click here to return to summary of survey results.