Henrik Lantz

This place has been quiet for a while, I know. I’ve been really busy/travelling/ill/broken PC/and all that, but that hasn’t stopped me from doing a few things on the side. Feel free to have a look at:

• Photo Album - If you have a Nikon D70 you should put it to use, don’t you think?
• Cooking - Recipes with pictures. Off to the kitchen!

I may be quiet, but I am not dead.

Some people have too much time, I think we can all agree. I work, as some of my readers will know, within the field of IP networking; my employer is a European MSO, and the Internet service is one of our flagships. The team I manage is responsible for the operations of our backbones and other networks; needless to say, I am confronted with nerds for much of my waking life. (I use the term “nerd” affectionately here, don’t get me wrong - I used to be one myself until very recently.)

Back in 1990, perfectly on time for April 1st, an RFC was issued, entitled A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers (RFC 1149). This document was written by David Waitzman and it describes, in spite of its grand title, a method of carrying IP packets (the small bits of data that make the Internet work) across the world, using not electricity on copper wires and not by propelling photons down strands of optical fibre at the speed of light; no, this method uses homing pigeons to transfer data. (This RFC was actually sent to all the major manufacturers of network equipment, asking them if they supported these standards, and scaringly enough - a staggering majority of the manufacturers actually claimed that they did, for sure without reading the document in question…)

In 1999, Mr. Waitzman updated his RFC - and, again, strangely enough on the same date as the original RFC, April 1st. This time, the document (RFC 2549) also included aspects such as Quality of Service (a way of prioritizing certain kinds of traffic over others) - how you could increase the transfer rate by loading your pigeons onto air planes (if you use a Concorde, an extra plus is that your data frame (ie. the pigeon) would earn double frequent flyer points) and how the use of pigeons compared to, for example, the use of ostriches as carrier frames. All in traditional, very theoretic RFC-style language. For any nerd, these documents are a sheer joy to read.

And if you think David Waitzman is the one with too much time on his hands, listen to this:

The Bergen Linux User Group in Norway has actually taken it upon themselves to not only read the RFC (the original one), but in 2001 they actually constructed the first ever (recorded) RFC 1149-compliant network and used it to transmit data. They even built specific protocol stacks for their Linux boxes, and teamed up with Vesta Brevdue Forening, a homing pigeon organisation close to Bergen, and tested it out for real. OK, so transfer speeds weren’t all that amazing; you might even want to say terrible. But at least it works, and that’s what counts to any nerd.

(On a related note: we’re always talking about transfer speeds that we see on the internet; megabits and kilobits per second. Transfer speeds of course depend on a lot of things, such as the media used, the geographic distance between the endpoints and the load on the network. Sometimes it’s hard to imagine that the transfer speed you can extrapolate from FedExing a DVD across the Atlantic is actually faster than downloading it over a dedicated fibre connection. After all; whether it’s a streaming download or a posted CD - you can still break it down into how many bits are transferred per second.)

BBC have got another interesting series on (I really need to get out more) at the moment, called Dragons’ Den. This is a new type of “real-life show” where budding inventors and businessmen are brought face-to-face with five potential investors and venture capitalists (the dragons). The potentials come in with a financial goal and have a certain amount of time in which to do their sales pitch and try to win one (or more) of the dragons over and get them to invest in their businesses. They come in one by one, and different potentials do not directly compete with each other; they are individually judged by the dragons as they stand before them and are given a yes or a no immediately.

The idea is, basically, that people that have good ideas and a good business sense might find the backing of investors that have a proven track record, in order to get them going in the Big League, as it were; naturally in exchange for an interest in the company - normally a share of equity and commitment from the entrepreneurs themselves. Some people do meet their matches, some people manage to sell their ideas to the dragons, and go away with financial backing and what they came for (of course, if they don’t achieve at least 100% of what they came for, they will not get anything at all) - others do not.

It’s amazing really; some of the people that face the dragons really have no clue about what they are doing. The guys are struggling to remember what margins they have on their products - how much money they make from every unit sold -, they can’t remember the names of their distributors, they twist and turn facts to make their products more attractive and they omit vital information from their potential investors. Some girl the other day claimed that her board game was going to be launched by the legendary London toy store Hamleys in a few weeks time - what had in fact been agreed was that Hamleys would provide her with a table where she could sell it on their premises, but they would do nothing about the launch themselves. Another guy today had all but struck a deal to get full funding for his project when he let slip that he was going to keep the patents for himself and not give the dragons any share in his US business - they threw him out immediately. You can’t try to be smart with these people - they are investors, and the reason that they are still there is that they can spot phonies.

Needless to say, the vast majority of applicants are rejected. Following up on today’s trends in television, these dismissals are harsh, bordering on cruel. The dragons (at least some of them) are doing a slightly better job at being merciless than Anne Robinson on The Weakest Link, and to be honest - I don’t enjoy seeing people being subjected to abuse simply because they are not businessmen or do not come prepared enough. OK, some of them don’t have a “good enough” product to make money from, and some don’t put the required effort into their business - but that is no reason to treat them like lesser human beings. Comments “You say you’re studying to become a doctor? I would suggest that you go and see one.” and “That is by far the worst business proposition I have heard. Do you really expect me to invest in this?” are not uncommon from the dragons.

Now, and here’s my point with this post, I think this show has its sides. Of course, for those that receive their funding from the dragons, this is naturally good - perhaps they may be required to give up more equity than they had expected, but at least they get funding and support from people with connections. For some entrepreneurs that watch the show, it probably gives them some good pointers to think of before going to find sponsors for their businesses as well, possibly it will even open their eyes for the fact that it is possible to find investors. I do think, however, that the larger portion of the could-be businessmen are put off by this overly ruthless attitude presented by the business professionals.

We see the same in the talent-based shows (Idols, Fame Academy, Fame Factory, all depending on where you live) - there must always be a record label executive on the panel to tell the participants The Truth so that the candidates will become Prepared For The Business. I think it’s uncalled for at this early stage in someone’s business/career - let the person make their own mistakes once they are in the business, instead of, out of some kind of presumed mercy, “help” them by clipping their wings before they have even left the nest. Don’t underestimate people’s abilities, and even if you don’t find it the right business for you to invest in - let them know this in a civilized way and give them positive feedback instead of downright criticism. Especially when it’s done on TV, since this will very likely affect more people than the poor person you’re tearing apart in front of you.