To: Frank Bulk
Cc: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Since a second build-out is impractical (if not actually impossible) and
they don't
sell UNEs, they are, in fact, pretty much exempt from direct competition for
the
same services.
Owen
, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements.
As
a network provider you can resell their service
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that
last drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't
usually want installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even
light a
On Monday, March 24, 2014 04:26:11 AM Naslund, Steve wrote:
If you are going to try to do a fiber build out to the
home, what would be the monthly cost of just the cable
if I cannot sell services on it and is anyone will the
pay the much. If I have to pay something like say $40 a
month for
The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to maximize
the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200 a month
TV/voice/Internet service is not going to be happy getting a bill of
On 24 March 2014 10:47, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Here in Illinois, we have been paying for the construction of our tollway in
perpetuity. When it was originally built the state promised to remove the
tolls as soon as construction costs were recovered. We are still waiting
and
On 03/23/2014 11:08 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition.
This is a quagmire;but it boils down to if the FCC says they're exempt,
then they're exempt and have a 'rural monopoly' (there's a lot of
caselaw and a number of FCC Report and Orders (and further
- Original Message -
From: Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com
Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county
taxes on chairs, Obama care, accountants and time required.
$ enable
# conf t
(conf)# Obamacare
^ command not understood
Cheers,
-- jra
--
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
What do you mean by average monthly bill? That is the issue here. The
average monthly bill includes the services you are getting. In the
Chicago area a fiber optic access circuit unbundled from the imcumbent
carrier to a
line is that if you can get a
residential customer to pay even $700 construction charge very often, I will be
impressed.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:25 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns
and cross my one acre lot with it?
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:25 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.comwrote:
[...]
The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to
maximize the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
Thinking about this again, let's take Jay at his word that he can make
a passing for $700-800.
Let's not.
I was quoting vendors who had themselves been quoted by other NANOGers.
Whether those other NANOGers had *paid*
never be a free market.
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:54 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
*too old, failing memory and all, I'll have to go read up
[mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements. As
a network provider you can resell their service
blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
- Original Message -
From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com
What do you mean by average monthly bill? That is the issue here. The
average monthly bill includes the services you are getting. In the
Chicago area a fiber optic access circuit
You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that last
drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't usually want
installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even light a building
unless there is a service that requires it. I was trying to make the
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that last
drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't usually want
installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even light a
We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along
with th= e services they sell. That is my point. They are able to
spread the costs= out based on the profitable services they sell.
Okay.
If they were not able to =
sell us services I am not sure they could afford to
... In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you that I
paid the LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to sell
DSL service at around ten times that cost. I am sure the LEC was not
making money at the $4 a month and I know I could not fund a build out for
that
To: David Miller
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
RLECs, as well as satellite providers. I'm not aware of any
exclusivity.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
snip
[mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:08 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition. Some areas are
effectively exempt from facilities-based (i.e. wireline
Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements. As
a network provider you can
: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements. As a
network provider you can resell their service but they are not required to
provide unbundled elements necessary to compete against them as a facilities
based provider. So
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements. As a
network provider
: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
*too old, failing memory and all, I'll have to go read up on natural
monopoly--I can not think of one that does not require regulation and
force of arms to exist.
I want to ask you folks something...
How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of
data gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection
Sites (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean?
Todd Glassey
On 3/21/2014 6:54 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:18 AM, TGLASSEY tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
I want to ask you folks something...
How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
(daily) with no one noticing... Know
are not typically politically or regulatorily motivated.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Eric Wieling [mailto:ewiel...@nyigc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Make the regulation and force of arms
* snasl...@medline.com (Naslund, Steve) [Fri 21 Mar 2014, 17:00 CET]:
I see no reason why the US model would not work in any market economy.
Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
pay a lot more for much less performance.
-- Niels.
Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
pay a lot more for much less performance.
stateside consumer internet is a third world country ruled by robber
barons supported by a corrupt government.
skip the politics and hyperbole and judge by the bottom line. at home
On 3/22/2014 12:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
It's my understanding and experience that most gov't jurisdictions will give
CLECs and other telecommunication providers access to the RoW -- generally
speaking it's not exclusive to ILECs or MSOs. Now the challenge may be
finding room in the existing
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, TGLASSEY tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
(daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean?
Wouldn't You Like To
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
my house?
IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the last mile is
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to my
house?
We already did it. The Telecommunications Act allows
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
my house?
IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the last
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
recent developments.
We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
regulatory and legislative manipulation that led to the current outcome,
That's
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:25:09 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building
infrastructure but not selling the services on top of
it. Remember Global Crossing? You are asking one
company to put up all the capital expense and then try
to recover it
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building infrastructure but
not selling the services on top of it. Remember Global Crossing? You are
asking one company to put up all the capital expense and then try
Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county taxes
on chairs,
Obama care, accountants and time required.
Bob Evans
CTO
Bob Evans
CTO
Do you need IPv4 space to lease, space you can use until IPv6 is the
standard?
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:30:45PM +, Sholes, Joshua wrote:
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
recent developments.
We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
regulatory
-Original Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl
that right).
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:01 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:46:13 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
First question to ask
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote:
What do you mean by average monthly bill?
What is the average monthly (non-subsidized) access cost that your
friends and family pay each month?
-Jim P.
for that price.
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:07 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM
On Friday, March 21, 2014 05:59:54 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
So, as far as the government or Wall Street funding the
build out of the commercial Internet, that is not what
happened.
Lots of terrestrial and submarine optical fibre was built in
the late 90's, and much of it has either gone
Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:07 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl
/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
Technica
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
|On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
| The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
|I'd prefer competition to regulation
On Friday 21 March 2014 09:13:28 Naslund, Steve wrote:
... In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you
that I paid the LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to
sell DSL service at around ten times that cost. I am sure the LEC was not
making money at the $4 a month
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley no.s...@comcast.net wrote:
How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
competing with are in a different strata providing the same service.
eg: Cellular data
We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with th=
e services they sell. That is my point. They are able to spread the costs=
out based on the profitable services they sell.
Okay.
If they were not able to =
sell us services I am not sure they could afford to
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley no.s...@comcast.net wrote:
How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
competing with
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:13 , Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Keegan Holley no.s...@comcast.net wrote:
Again why is the market so important? It just fascinates me
that no one questions it.
Howdy,
The impact of competition was extensively questioned and researched
with respect to U.S. Government contracting rules in the
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
charge=20
for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
building fiber to my home. Not everyone
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
charge=20
for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC
The impact of competition was extensively questioned and researched
with respect to U.S. Government contracting rules in the early '80s.
This led to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. Since then
there's been the routine grumble about the lowest quality bidder and
the periodic scandal
On 3/21/2014 9:13 AM, Sholes, Joshua wrote: How do you get around the
problem of natural monopolies, then?
My strongly held belief is that if the natural monopoly* becomes
oppressive somebody in their garage will find another way, and absent
regulation and force of arms available to the
the last mile can never be a free market.
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:54 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
*too old, failing memory and all, I'll have to go read up
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require
regulation.
Original message
From: Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com
Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
Technica
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17
On 3/20/2014 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require
regulation.
regulation prevents competition. That is why people want regulation.
Look at this thread at the people who do not want to be competed-with at
L1, for example.
--
63 matches
Mail list logo
