December 2007 Archives

The NFL Network did the "right thing" this past weekend. While it had the exclusive rights to the Patriots/Giant game on Saturday night, NFL Networks decided to make its game feed available to the two other NFL "broadcast" networks. As even the casual sports fan knows, the outcome of the Pats/Giants would determine whether the Patriots would be the first team in NFL history finish a 16-game season undefeated. As expected -- if you've seen their Saturday night line-ups -- both NBC and CBS simulcast the NFL Network feed. It was a very enjoyable game with the outcome undecided until late in the 4th quarter.

Now I'm going to suggest that the NFL do another "right thing" and put the NFL Network out of business.

Why do I say that?

The NFL doesn't have enough new content to sustain a "network." They only play games a few months out of the year, yet they expect a cable customer or cable franchise to carry their content for the whole year. I, for one, can only pay to watch the Bills lose a Super Bowl so many times. Further, I am not convinced that there is a business model for the NFL network. It was probably something which "looked good on paper" like AOL/Time-Warner (OK I did think AOL/Time-Warner was a good idea).

The NFL network had a few exclusive games this year which I believe only served to anger their loyal fan base most of whom don't have the NFL Network. This is the fan base which goes to the games, buys the merchandise, and otherwise serves as "customer evangelists." Is it a good "business model" to alienate your "customer evangelists?" I know several loyal Steelers season ticket owners who were very upset about their NFL Networks exclusive Thursday night game earlier in the season.

Unless the future of the NFL is completely "pay-per-view," I think the NFL has to
do the "right thing" and put the NFL Network out of business.

Mark Saussure blogged about Green Data Centers last week. One of the technologies he wrote about was "stored cooling." He writes:

There was some really cool stuff (literally) regarding techniques of stored cooling. The most interesting was the "Cool Battery". This is a device that uses a synthetic phase change material (don't ask me what it is) that freezes at up to 43 degrees F. Basically a big honkin ice cube. Up to 3000 ton/hr units are available. The material can be frozen by your chillers during off peak times and the chillers can be turned off at peak times thus saving on energy costs or credits the institution would be in line to receive.

I've been thinking about the thermodynamics of this a little and I guess I have to rethink what "green" means.

Here's a Washington Post article about the MetLife Building in NYC which uses ice as the phase change material to "store the cold." In this case both money and energy are saved because the system which freezes the ice using off-peak power is more efficient than the regular air conditioning system. During peak times, the ice melts and the cool air circulates throughout the building. There are days when this alone is sufficient to cool the MetLife building. The cycle renews every night. According to the numbers, this not only reduces the energy consumed during peak energy consumption times, but it also achieves the environmentally friendly goal ("green" -- I think), by reducing the overall energy consumption of the building. While the separate system was expensive to install, it has very little in the way of moving parts (if the system "breaks," the ice just melts).

If we cool the data center with the same system that freezes the phase change material (PCM), as I think Mark's post implies, can this be "green?" We can save money provided we have different rates for off-peak and peak power or get credit for using off-peak power. I use off-peak power as the variable here, because from what I can see there is no off-peak data center usage anymore, particularly when I see how our Research Computing and Cyberinfrastructure folks are keeping the clusters busy.

Assuming that we are using the same chillers, I have to believe, we are fighting the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("In an isolated system, a process can occur only if it increases the total entropy of the system," i.e., "There's no such thing as a free lunch.") not once, but twice. The system would use more energy than just chilling the building in the absence of the PCM "cool battery."

Could this still be green? Maybe... When speaking with Dave Beyerle, he suggested that this process would still lower the peak power required by the data center. So, while it might require more energy, that energy is more spread out over time and perhaps we don't need as big of a power plant to supply it. Perhaps we build fewer power plants as a result. Perhaps it still is green.

Regardless, it's always interesting to think about something you haven't thought about in a while (It's been over 20 years since I took Statistical Mechanics). Just because something says it's "green," often we need to look at the bigger picture to determine if it really is. Coming soon: my rant about compact florescent lights.

There was a great story from the Associated Press today about a "Wacky Warning" contest. The winning entry was a warning found on a tractor, that said, "Avoid Death" which as the AP story said, are "words to live by." The print version had a quote by someone from a trial lawyers' association saying we shouldn't make fun of these warnings. As I've said before, I am not a lawyer (IANAL), but lighten up pal.

Whenever I see a story about this, I think about a trip I took to Ireland about 10 years ago. We rode bikes around one of the Aran Islands from where the ferry dropped us off to Dún Aengus, a Bronze Age fort which guarded Galway Bay. It's a traditional fort on about three sides (it's actually a round fort), with the fourth "wall" made up of a very long drop to the water. At the edge of the "cliff wall" there's maybe two warning signs that say something like, "Stay away from edge." At the time I remarked to my brother-in-law that truly I knew I wasn't in America anymore. If that had been a U.S. historical site, there would have been a three story chain link fence all along the cliff. That fence would have razor wire up top and be covered with signs saying, "Danger, stay away from cliff. Death or injury may result." That warning would have been vetted by dozens of government attorneys and have the international symbol of someone falling to his death from a cliff (you know there has to be one). Despite the barriers, the walls of signs, and the international symbols for someone falling to his death off of a cliff, some kid would still scale the 3 story fence, trip on the razor wire, and fall to his death resulting in a liability lawsuit claiming he wasn't clearly warned of the dangers.

Now please don't characterize my cynicism as an indictment of all trial lawyers and lawsuits. I think they're a valuable part of democratic capitalism. But do I think these warnings are getting out of hand? When most of a 30-second spot for an erectile dysfunction drug is warnings (including the big one -- YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT), maybe it's time to decide how much people should be able to think for themselves and award Darwins instead of money.

The title quote is from a story my old boss Bill Peterson used to tell about his Marine Corps boot camp experience. It was from his drill instructor and was not directed at Bill (at least that's how he tells it).

The quote came to mind when I was listening to "This American Life" on Sunday night. It was a rebroadcast of a show with the title, "The Middle of Nowhere." Act Two in particular struck a chord with me. It was titled, "On Hold, No One Can Hear You Scream." In it one of the producers of the show needs the intercession of host Ira Glass to resolve a several hundred dollar problem with her phone bill.

I ran into Allen Stubblefield this morning and he asked me if I'd heard the show. What occurred to Allen and me was that this was a perfect example of how NOT to do customer service. Most of the problem occurred because the customer service representatives didn't follow-up to make sure the problem was resolved. Rather than dismiss this, I think it's useful to listen to it and take some lessons from the bad example.

I've already listened to it three times. I listened because I had a very similar experience with the same phone company, but also because I know I've been guilty of some of these behaviors over the years. At the end of the story, it's clear the phone company learned some lessons from the whole affair.

Perhaps we can too.