On 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65.
That's pretty sweet, now all they have to do is start laying the fiber
over here...
On 23-okt-2007, at 19:43, Sean Donelan wrote:
The problem here is that they seem to be using a sledge hammer:
BitTorrent is essentially left dead in the water. And they deny
doing anything, to boot.
A reasonable approach would be to throttle the offending
applications to make them fit
On Tue, October 23, 2007 5:17 pm, Jack Bates wrote:
Sorry, I am the incumbent. ;) I was just thinking of the copper necessary
to do such a task on a massive scale. It's definitely not in the ground
or on a pole at this point in time. One reason DSL was so desireable for
many small ILECs was
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
should be eager to offer it; but don't.
Well, Verizon seems to be making heavy bets on
I did consulting work for NTT in 2001 and 2002 and visited their Tokyo =
headquarters twice. NTT has two ILEC divisions, NTT East and NTT West. =
The ILEC management told me in conversations that there was no money in =
fiber-to-the-home; the entire rollout was due to government pressure and
I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement QoS
support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues: a default
queue, which handled regular internet traffic but squashed P2P, and then a
separate queue that allowed P2P to flow uninhibited for an extra
Hex Star wrote:
On 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65.
That's pretty sweet, now all they have to do is start laying the fiber
over here...
And stop
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
should be eager to offer it; but
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:29:54AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
On 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65.
That's pretty sweet, now all they have to do is
In the future, people are not going to believe that we permitted this
to happen.
Coming soon: your plumbing will be disconnected. But never fear:
an Evian vending machine will delivered to every deserving household...
TV
On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Larry Smith wrote:
On Wednesday 24
How about a system where I tell my customers that for a given plan X at
price Y they get U bytes of high priority upload per month (or day or
whatever) and after that all their traffic is low priority until the next
cycle starts.
Now here's the fun part. They can mark the priority on the packets
While probably more good than bad, it is my understanding that when
Verizon (and others) provide FTTH (fiber to the home) they cut or
physically disconnect all other connections to that residence. so much
for any choice...
At least around here, if you tell the installer you have an
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
There are many reasonable things providers could do.
So then why to you stick up for Comcast when they do something unreasonable?
Although yesterday there was a little more info and it seems they only stop
the affected protocols temporarily,
That's a fair plan.
Simple me came up with this one,
Don't say you offer 3mb if you only offer 20k.
Simple enough, I think a big problem is that sales is saying they offer
all this bandwidth, but the reality is no one gets it. You can blame P2P
all you want, but realistically if users are
The key thing is that it can't be too complicated for the subscriber. What
you've described is already too difficult for the masses to consume.
The scavenger class, as has been described in other postings, is probably
the simplest way to implement things. Let the application developers
Here's timely article: KDDI says 900k target for fibre users 'difficult'
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=20215email=html
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Andersen
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:21 PM
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:58:13AM -0400, Henry Yen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 08:29:54AM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
On 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each month or
the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes being advocated in
this discussion require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
That might dramatically shrink you 'addressable market', not to mention
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
should be eager to offer it; but
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each month or
the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes being advocated in
this discussion require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
You'd be surprised; users in
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
That misses the point. They are probably being forced to adapt by a monopoly
or a quasi-monopoly or by the fact that transport into Australia is extremely
expensive. The situation outside of Australia is quite different. A DS3 from
Sydney to LA is
That misses the point. They are probably being forced to adapt by a monopoly or
a quasi-monopoly or by the fact that transport into Australia is extremely
expensive. The situation outside of Australia is quite different. A DS3 from
Sydney to LA is worth about 10 DS3s NYC/London.
It is not
Frank Bulk wrote:
Here's timely article: KDDI says 900k target for fibre users 'difficult'
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=20215email=html
KDDI isn't the only ftfth provider... NTT east/west (flets), usen,
softbank/yahooBB and others all play in that space.
100/100 from
people manage to count stuff they use when they pay for it. minutes(cell),
kwh(electricity), gallons(gas), etc.
people have managed to figure out cell phone plans where they get N minutes
included and then pay extra over that.
the only users this would affect are those that upload a lot,
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
You'd be surprised; users in the Australian market have had to get
used to knowing how much bandwidth they use.
People are adaptable. Get used to it. :)
Likewise, people seem to complain about anything. Even Australians seem
to like to complain.
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:44:53 BST, Rod Beck said:
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each
month or the bytes generated by different applications.
Note that in many/most cases, the person signing the agreement and paying
the bill (the parental units) are not the ones
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
The problem isn't a particular type of traffic in isolation, its usually
the impact of one network user's traffic on all the other network user's
traffic sharing the same network.
Network Quotas for Individuals - A better answer to the P2P bandwidth
problem?
Exactly. And because they installed fiber, the FCC has ruled that they
do not have to provide unbundled network elements to competitors.
It's this last bit that seems to be leading to lots of complaints, and
it's the earlier pricing of unbundled network elements at or above the
cost of
On Oct 24, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
The problem isn't a particular type of traffic in isolation, its
usually the impact of one network user's traffic on all the other
network user's traffic sharing the same network.
Network Quotas for Individuals - A better answer to the
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Again, is there no alternative between such extremely low data caps on
everyone and extreme usage by a a few?
Sure, I'll sell you a 1:1 pipe that you can use 100%. AUD $400 a megabit.
No worries. :)
Adrian
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
consume each month or the bytes generated by different
applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the UK
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:33:35 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger
suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has
anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel unscathed
through the public Internet?
I would like to apologize to anyone who received an unwanted email from
Choice Resale over the last few days. We have a new salesperson who did not
realize that this type of email was not appropriate to send to list members.
Choice Resale prides itself on being an important and valuable
34 matches
Mail list logo
