On Apr 13, 2008, at 5:36 PM, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Bottom line first:
We need OOB metadata (trust/distrust) information exchange that
scales
better than the current O(N^2) nonsense, yet is not PKI.
Not sure why PKI should be excluded, but, so far, this is too abstract
to know what the
While the goal may be good, a reality check might be in order.
AFAICS, the impact will be that residential and similar usage will
be more heavily NATted. Enterprises need to pay higher cost per
public v4 address. IPv4 multihoming practises will evolve (e.g.,
instead of multihoming
On Feb 24, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Tom Vest [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Feb 23, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Rechecking my own post to PPML, 73 Xtra Large orgs held 79.28% of
ARIN's address space as of May 07; my apology for a faulty
memory, but it's
On Feb 24, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
I figured as much, but it was worth a try.
Which touches on the earlier discussion of the null routing of /32s
advertised by a special AS (as a means of black-holing DDOS traffic).
It seems to me that a more immediately germane matter
I have been informed by Merit that there will be no webcast of this
afternoon's
AC Hosted BoF. I apologize for any inconvenience. I am posting this
because
I received a number of inquiries on this topic.
Owen
The proposal was posted to PPML, but, since the AC has not yet
moved it forward to formal proposal status, it doesn't have a number
and isn't on the ARIN web site just yet.
The thread on PPML is available here:
[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
Owen
Sorry for the short notice.
For anyone coming to NANOG early who is a certified SCUBA DIver, I'll
be diving in Monterey (about 1 hour drive from San Jose) Saturday and
Sunday.
If you're interested in joining me, send an email off-list.
Owen DeLong
Open Water SCUBA Instructor (PADI)
.
The session will be from 4:00 to 5:30 on Tuesday, February 19th and
will be
in the Crystal Room on Level B.
We will be discussing the recently posted transfer policy proposal and
other
ideas around the IPv4 free-pool exhaustion process(es).
Thanks,
Owen DeLong
ARIN AC
On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:42:44AM +,
Roland Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
in the UK it [phone number portability] 's done with something
similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N
I don't know about your IP addresses, but, people can use my IP
addresses
from a number of locations which are nowhere near the jurisdiction in
which my network operates, so, I don't really see the correlation
here
with license plates or phone numbers.
I'm not clear if you mean
I'm sorry, but, I have a great deal of difficulty seeing how an IP can
be considered
personally identifying.
For example, in my home, I have static addresses. However, the number
of
different people using those addresses would, to me, imply that you
cannot
personally identify anyone
On Jan 24, 2008, at 8:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:39:53 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
What we can do with IP addresses is conclude that the user of the
machine with an address is likely to be one of its usual users. We
can't say that with 100% certainty, because
Well, you say we need to spend more money every year on address
space.
Right now we're paying $2,250/year for our /32, and we're able to
serve
65 thousand customers. You want us to start paying $4,500/year, but
Bob
tells me that we're wasting a lot of our current space, and if we were
to
On Dec 24, 2007, at 9:43 PM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24 dec 2007, at 20:00, Kevin Loch wrote:
RA/Autoconf won't work at all for some folks with deployed server
infra,
That's just IPv4 uptightness. As long as you don't change your MAC
address you'll get the same
The primary reasons I see for separate networks on v6 would include
firewall policy (DMZ, separate departmental networks, etc)...
This is certainly one reason for such things.
And I'm having some trouble envisioning a residential end user that
honestly has a need for 256 networks with
On Dec 21, 2007, at 9:39 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The primary reasons I see for separate networks on v6 would include
firewall policy (DMZ, separate departmental networks, etc)...
This is certainly one reason for such things.
Really, in most small business networks I've seen, it's by far the
So my wondering is basically, if we say we have millions of end
users right now and we want to give them a /56 each, and this is no
problem, then the policy is correct. We might not have them all IPv6
activated in 2 years which is the RIR planning horizon. I do concur
with other
So, assuming this translates roughly to optics being:
$1,000 4km
$1,300 10km
$2,600 40km
You'd rather have to pay $2,600 for all your campus links than
$1,300 for all your LAN links?
My preference would be quite
On Aug 6, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
But why would they care where the nameserver is? Point 2 would seem to
be a little stupid a thing to assume. Also, what happens if, at that
moment, the ICMP packet is stuck in a queue for a few ms making the
shortest route longer.
While
On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:44 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[trimmed other lists, not sure if they'd appreciate nanog volumes]
On 7-jun-2007, at 11:06, James Blessing wrote:
As many people are aware there is an 'expectation' that 'consumer'
broadband providers introduce network level content
#1 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from vendor
lock-in.
Speaking of FUD... NAT does nothing here that is not also accomplished
through the use of PI addressing.
#2 NAT advantage: it protects consumers from add-on
fees for addresses space.
More FUD. The correct solution to
On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:41 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
On Jun 4, 2007, at 11:32 AM, Jim Shankland wrote:
Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There's no security gain from not having real IPs on machines.
Any belief that there is results from a lack of understanding.
This is one of those
On May 31, 2007, at 8:03 AM, Donald Stahl wrote:
The upside is that in the block you're expected to accept /48s,
nobody will have a /32. The downside is that anyone who gets a
larger-than-minimum sized allocation/assignment can deaggregate
down to that level.
I don't think ARIN is
Also, is there a way to find the average number of peers that
these sites
multihome with? If not, how large is it in general?
Difficult to say, and lots of people have tried. Route-Views @
Oregaon, CAIDA, RIPE RIS, and many others has some data you might
be able to morph into that.
Tongue in cheek:
Perhaps they upgraded to Vista on their servers and they are all
waiting
for someone to come around and answer the Someone is trying to send
mail through this server. Cancel or Allow? prompts.
Owen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
All reachable from the ARIN meeting.
Owen
On Apr 23, 2007, at 7:46 AM, James Blessing wrote:
Shai Balasingham wrote:
We recently started to assign these blocks. So all the ranges are not
assigned yet. Following are some...
99.245.135.129
99.246.224.1
99.244.192.1
All reachable from here
I think if you are referring to public disclosure, yes, I think
there's
little point of doing this, unless you are seeking attention. Of
course,
reporting a problem to vendor privately always makes sense.
Public disclosure of the existence of a vulnerability and whatever
information is
On Jan 20, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Rodrick Brown wrote:
On 1/20/07, Mark Boolootian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cringley has a theory and it involves Google, video, and
oversubscribed
backbones:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070119_001510.html
The following comment has
4.3.2.1 Single Connection
The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-
users is a /20. [...]
4.3.2.2 Multihomed Connection
For end-users who demonstrate an intent to announce the
requested space in a multihomed fashion, the minimum block of IP
address space assigned is
Surprise, a spammer is operating from IPs with fake registration data.
I'm shocked... NOT!
Owen
On Jan 13, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Gregory Hicks wrote:
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:58:02 + (GMT)
From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth
Yesterday, around 10:00 AM Pacific Time 1/5/07, Kwajalein Atoll lost all
connectivity to the mainland. We were told this was because MCI lost 40
DS-3s due to someone shooting up a telephone pole in California
This affected Internet, Telephones (although inbound phone calls to the
islands were
Savvis wants to retain your ID if they issue a cage-key to you.
Owen
On Dec 27, 2006, at 8:52 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
Randy Epstein wrote:
throughout the US. In recent memory, I can think of two large
collocation
centers that retain your ID. One is in Miami and one in New York
(I
On Dec 27, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 09:06 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Savvis wants to retain your ID if they issue a cage-key to you.
If they (or others) asked you to let them hold $50 cash to cover their
key/lock replacement costs would you feel more
This may be a nit, but, you will _NEVER_ see AC power at any, let
alone all of
the seats. Seat power that works with the iGo system is DC and is not
conventional 110 AC.
Owen
On Oct 15, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
e-mail from
The actual law is insanely vague and requires proof and a written
record.
The court system and IRS have been all over the map about what
constitutes
proof vs. just a written record, and, as such, accounting trolls have
developed
a myriad of different policies.
However, I think we have
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, it will break an applications that considers everything
consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse
mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then
treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address.
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is
usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of
energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre
before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination
switch/router?
Also,
On Sep 17, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Also, you're incorrect on the process. You can definitely get an
ASN
without IP space.
I find that fascinating. The ARIN template:
http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/asn-request.txt
On Sep 13, 2006, at 8:43 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:37:05 -0700
David Conrad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure the same argument was used for telephone numbers when
technical folk were arguing against number portability.
Oh come on. You know perfectly well that
Apologies to the list, but, I have no other way to contact the person who thought thiswas a good idea...Could whoever thought it was a good idea to gateway NANOG messages to a bloggerplease fix their blogger gateway or turn it off.OwenBegin forwarded message:From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: September
Look at this page: http://www.arin.net/cgi-bin/member_list.pl
Every one of those organizations has disclosed to ARIN
all their customer names, etc... That is the way things
are done. If you don't want to play ball like the rest
of us, then you are not going to get IP addresses. That's
the simple
On Sep 12, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 06:55:11PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
I find the references to alleged, inherent difficulties with the ARIN
resource assignment process increasingly tedious. Even if the
templates were impossible to decipher,
IP addresses appear to be property - - read http://news.findlaw.com/
hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremencohen72503opn.pdf. Given that domain names
are property, IP addresses should be property, especially in
California where are constitution states All things of value are
property
I'm not sure how you
On Sep 8, 2006, at 10:33 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ I said ]
The debate there will be around the preferential treatment that
larger
ARIN members get (in terms of larger allocations, lower per address
fees, etc), which Kremen construes as being anticompetitive
Apologies to the list, but, I'm at Witts End on this problem.Can someone from SBCGLOBAL with 1/2 a clue please contact me?I'm seeing an issue between dist4-g9-3.pltnca.sbcglobal.net andbras2-g9-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net with intermittent complete packetloss... Matt's
I think my previous post may have touched on a more global issue.
Given the number of such posts I have seen over time, and, my
experiences trying to
report problems to other ISPs in the past, it seems to me that a high
percentage of
ISPs, especially the larger ones, simply don't allow for
Uptime might not matter for small hosts that do mom and pop websites
or so-called beta blog-toys, but every time Level3 takes a dump,
it's my wallet that feels the pain. It's actually a rather frustrating
situation for people who aren't big enough to justify a /19 and an
AS#, but require
--On April 14, 2006 9:26:56 PM +0100 Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 01:13:19PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
When a random customer (content hoster) asks you to accept
something out of 8/8 that is Level(3) space, and there is no
route at this moment in
Apologies if anyone thinks this does not require coordination or is somehow
not operational.
However, I have a situation where some nameservers for which I am
responsible
are receiving queries for hosts for which we are authoritative. We
return the SOA only as it seems we are supposed
--On April 13, 2006 8:13:27 AM +0930 Mark Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:27:54 -0400
Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apologies if anyone thinks this does not require coordination or is
somehow not operational.
However, I have a situation where some nameservers
Unicast currently ends at 223.255.255.255.
224.0.0.0/4 is multicast and I believe that
240.0.0.0/5
248.0.0.0/6
252.0.0.0/6 are listed as reserved for experimental purposes.
Owen
--On March 31, 2006 5:06:54 AM -0500 Joe Maimon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4271 specifies that bgp identifier must
I've had pretty good luck with OmniGraffle Professional, and, it's fairly
cheap, too. Has many of the features Visio has, and, is gaining more
on a regular basis. It lacks the Visio silly pictures (although you could
create your own easily enough), but, it does understand connections between
--On March 7, 2006 1:35:05 PM +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/06, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Singapore seems to force all of their ISPs to send all HTTP requests
through a proxy that has a set of rules defining sites you are not
allowed to visit
--On March 7, 2006 9:13:21 AM +0100 tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Folks across the ocean..
I understand, that from an American point of view this kind of restriction
looks strange and is against your act of freedom, however here in Europe
gambling is a state controlled business that
--On March 7, 2006 8:12:59 AM -0500 Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mar 7, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I understand, that from an American point of view this kind of
restriction
looks strange and is against your act of freedom, however here in
Europe
gambling
--On March 7, 2006 1:38:50 PM -0500 John Curran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 1:08 PM -0800 3/6/06, Owen DeLong wrote:
I've got no opposition to issuing addresses based on some geotop. design,
simply because on the off chance it does provide useful aggregation, why
not. OTOH, I haven't seen
--On March 6, 2006 12:46:51 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6-mrt-2006, at 3:52, Roland Dobbins wrote:
fixed geographic allocations (another nonstarter for reasons which
have been elucidated previously)
What I hear is any type of geography can't work
This just means that there will be an offshore proxy market in the near
future.
Owen
--On March 6, 2006 12:41:24 PM -0700 Rodney Joffe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It appears that Italy has ordered Italian ISPs to block access to a
number of Internet Gambling sites. It would be interesting to
Not to digress too far, but, I guess that depends on your definition of
best.
I am sure that many peoples of this world would argue that capitalism has
been rather catastrophic in terms of resource allocation and resulting
effects with regard to oil, for example.
Owen
Singapore seems to force all of their ISPs to send all HTTP requests
through a proxy that has a set of rules defining sites you are not allowed
to visit.
Owen
--On March 7, 2006 1:48:39 AM + Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On
You are absolutely right that having to upgrade not only all hosts in a
multihomed site, but also all the hosts they communicate with is an
important weakness of shim6. We looked very hard at ways to do this type
of multihoming that would work if only the hosts in the multihomed site
were
--On March 5, 2006 3:28:05 PM -0500 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology
I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_
become a routing trick, but, so far, SHIM6 is a still-born piece
of overly complicated vaporware of minimal operational value, if any.
Vaporware part is true, upto now, operational value is to be seen.
Well... I can only go
--On March 2, 2006 11:31:51 AM +0100 Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 02:21 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Personally, I think a better solution is to stop overloading IDR
meaning onto IP addresses and use ASNs for IDR and prefixes for
intradomain routing only
--On March 2, 2006 3:15:59 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
they won't have to do this because the BGP
--On March 2, 2006 9:37:12 AM -0500 Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:01:22PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think you're missing that some people do odd
things with their IPs as well, like have one ASN and 35
different sites where they connect
Please consider also 2005-1 at
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
Owen
pgpg8cW8ERncu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
The other PI assignment policies that have been proposed either
require that you have a /19 already in IPv4 (lots of hosting
companies don't have anything this size), or have tens/hundreds of
thousands of devices.
It has also been suggested that the simple presence of
multihoming
Please don't mix up addressing and routing. PI addressing as you
mention is addressing. SHIM6 will become a routing trick.
I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_
become a routing trick, but, so far, SHIM6 is a still-born piece
of overly complicated vaporware of
I think you're missing that some people do odd
things with their IPs as well, like have one ASN and 35
different sites where they connect to their upstream Tier69.net
all with the same ASN. This means that their 35 offices/sites
will each need a /32, not one per the entire asn in the
--On February 26, 2006 7:53:40 AM -0600 Pete Templin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things like b-
cast storms isolated. But I think the additional complexity will
cause more problems than it will solve.
One must keep in mind that
--On February 25, 2006 11:04:12 AM -0500 Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
I have 2 core routers (CR) and 3 access routers (AR)
currently connected point-to-point where each AR connects to
each CR for a total of 6 ckts. Now
--On February 25, 2006 8:09:22 PM + Christopher L. Morrow
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006, Neil J. McRae wrote:
An argument could be made for individual VLANs to keep things
like b- cast storms isolated. But I think the additional
complexity will cause more
Because so far, DOC still thinks they control the oversight functions of
some aspects of what used to be under the NSF and the USG wants to continue
pretending that they control the internet.
Owen
--On February 24, 2006 9:27:40 AM -0500 Martin Hannigan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This
Original posting from Declan McCullagh's PoliTech mailing list. Thought
NANOGers would be interested since, if this bill passes, it would impact
almost all of us. Just imagine the impact on security of not being able
to login IP address and referring page of all web server connections!
--On December 29, 2005 5:51:04 AM -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:20:51 PST, Owen DeLong said:
Denying patches doesn't tend to injure the trespassing user so much as
it injures the others that get attacked by his compromised machine.
I think that is why many
--On December 28, 2005 9:38:11 AM -0500 Jason Frisvold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/05, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look at it another way... If the software is open source, then, there
is no requirement for the author to maintain it as any end user has
all the tools necessary
--On December 28, 2005 9:38:11 AM -0500 Jason Frisvold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/05, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Look at it another way... If the software is open source, then, there
is no requirement for the author to maintain it as any end user has
all the tools
--On December 28, 2005 11:09:31 AM -0800 Douglas Otis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 27, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
om, Hannigan, Martin writes:
In the general sense, possibly, but where there are lawyers there
is =
always
The reason there have not been any lawsuits against vendors is because
of license agreements -- every software license I've ever read,
including the GPL, disclaims all warranties, liability, etc. It's not
clear to me that that would stand up with a consumer plaintiff, as opposed
to a business;
--On December 27, 2005 10:39:38 AM -0500 Jason Frisvold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/27/05, Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was a lot of discussion about this in the music / technology /
legal community
at the time of the Sony root exploit CD's - which
I and others
[snip]
And I would agree with this reasoning. If the software is defective,
fix it or stop selling it. However, I don't think all software
developers have control over the selling of the software after it's
sent to the publisher. (I'm by no means intimate with how all this
works) So, for
I've seen this argument time and again, and, the reality is that it is
absolutely
false.
In fact, it will do nothing but encourage freeware. Liability for a product
generally doesn't exist until money changes hands. If you design a piece of
equipment and post the drawings in the public
is easy, but it does stop them from
contributing in most cases. There are always a few who like getting sued.
RIAA has shown companies will widescale sue so your argument is suspect,
IMO..
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon Dec 26 23:11:13 2005
of it and its all googleable.
Not being a lawyer, I'd guess the plaintiff size is highy debateable
based on source or destination.
Marty
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon Dec 26 23:32:04 2005
To: Hannigan, Martin; Joseph Jackson
Cc: NANOG
Actually, for actual implementation, there are subtle differences between
AS 0x0002 ans AS 0x0002. True, they are the same AS in 16 and 32 bit
representation, and, for allocation policy, they are the same, but, in
actual router guts, there are limited circumstances where you might actually
IP prefixes are NOT allocated to AS numbers, they are allocated to
Organizations
just like AS numbers.
Perhaps this is part of why you can't find such a list.
Owen
--On November 28, 2005 11:45:58 AM +0530 Glen Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
to different Autonomous systems.
Is there a
VZ certainly shouldn't remove any copper that doesn't belong to VZ. So,
unless
they are the ILEC in Apple Valley, that may or may not be an issue.
Owen
pgpYRQjKGEHor.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--On November 15, 2005 11:02:18 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True
--On November 16, 2005 4:23:20 AM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes... Here's some more accurate data:
Windows 3.1 price $49
Windows 3.1.1 price $99
Windows 95 (Personal) price $59
Windows 98
--On November 16, 2005 9:25:29 PM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes
--On November 14, 2005 11:04:46 AM -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
carrier are becoming the
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True
competition requires the ability
for multiple providers to enter into the market,
including the creation
of new providers to seize opportunities being
ignored
--On November 15, 2005 7:25:54 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is the exact problem with a [mon|du]opoly. The
incumbents drive
the price so low (because they own the network) that
it drives out an
potential competition.
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market,
--On November 15, 2005 11:23:50 PM -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think what is really represented there is that because
they own an existing network that was built with public
subsidy and future entrants have no such access to public
I think what is really represented there is that
because
they own an existing network that was built with
public
subsidy and future entrants have no such access to
public
subsidy to build their own network, ...
Sean's post correctly identified the problem with this
assertion, so I won't
And I
Actually, having now read the entire proposed law, I think it is
remarkably reasonable compared to most of what Congress has done
lately.
It sets the regulatory threshold for ISPs and VOIP providers at
a very low level. It preempts most of the local regulations.
It provides for the possibility
Something to consider about this proposed regulation... It is actually
in many ways proposed deregulation. This bill removes more authority
from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides
a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
a couple of
1 - 100 of 431 matches
Mail list logo
