date:20150227



On 27/Feb/15 20:04, Miles Fidelman wrote:
  

 Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been
 pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans?  Not sure how
 well it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON,
 which tops out at 155Mbps for uploads - theoretically, I have 25/25
 service, but I've occasionally seen my uploads fall to 100kbps (yes
 that's a k).  Highly intermittent though - Verizon's techs have been
 having lots of fun trying to track things down.

And this is one of the reasons I think xPON is still the wrong way to
go, if the industry feels symmetry is worth a dime.

But, admittedly, that's just me...

Mark.

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]


 On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
 Things like KP are obvious. Things like adult content here in the US are, 
 for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
 
 I would prefer they replace use of the phrase lawful internet
 traffic;   with   Internet traffic not prohibited by law  and not
 related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
 specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service.
 
 The use of the phrase LAWFUL  introduces ambiguity,  since any
 traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
 unlawful.

Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct.

Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.

 Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
 definition Unlawful as well….

Sorry, but no, that’s simply not accurate in the united states as legal 
terminology applies:

From law.com http://law.com/ (I’m too cheap to pay for a subscription to 
Black’s):

unlawful
adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or 
state constitution, or established legal precedents


Ergo, lawful would be anything which is not in violation of a statute, federal 
or state constitution, or established legal precedents.

Owen

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Collin Anderson

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:

 With the legal content rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
 mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
 therefore the providers can't block it.


How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
network neutrality rules for network management of SPAM?


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 27/Feb/15 19:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
 creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to download
 all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.

 And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
you need
 a *huge* pipe down.  Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for
 content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to
 clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to
downlink to
 fit in the available bandwidth.

Isn't this a phenomenon of the state of our (uplink) networks?

Remove the restriction and see what happens?

Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=nZQs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]


 On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
 Again, well settled.
 
 It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
 served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place 
 where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all 
 nodes for exactly this reason.
 
 Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
 be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
 traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?
 
 Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
 censorship laws on us?


This is absurd.

The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that location. 
Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out at the 
source by them.

The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that 
location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out there 
by them.

In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t read 
the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by the 
federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law would 
still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route traffic 
to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due process is 
violating US law.

Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce 
anything.

Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
 How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating 
 content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance 
 but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is that 
 the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  This has 
 not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to 
 art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video 
 lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their
days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind.

But wait...

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 28/Feb/15 07:09, Joe Greco wrote:

 Only partially.  It is also a phenomenon of having built the first
 broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a
 whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort
 of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy:  broadband networks don't see
 much call for tons of upstream because it wasn't available, and so
 there aren't lots of apps for it, and so users don't ask for it,
 and so the cycle continues.

My point.

It's not that folk don't ask for more uplink, but it's that they adjust
to their situation because it's hard enough getting a sales person on
the phone that knows what their doing, let along getting someone clued
up to come install the damn thing.

It's like cellphone toll quality - we've all accepted that if the call
is unclear or drops, we simply ring our party back instead of doing
something about it. We adapt to our network conditions where we know
further argument will yield strokes and heart attacks. It does not mean
we don't want better...

 In many cases, users who had high upstream requirements have been
 instead working around the brokenness by, for example, renting a
 server at a datacenter.  I know lots of gamers do this, etc.

A lot of my staff queue their uploads until they get to the office,
where we have fibre to our PoP. That's saying much...

 So even if we were to create massive new upstream capacity tomorrow,
 it might appear for many years that there's little interest.  Consider
 streaming video.  We theoretically had sufficient speed to do this at
 least ten years ago, but it took a long time for the technology to
 mature and catch on.

 However, it should be obvious that the best route to guaranteeing that
 new technologies do not develop is to keep the status quo.  With 
 wildly asymmetric speeds, upstream speeds are sometimes barely enough
 for the things we do today (and are already insufficient for network
 based backup strategies, etc).  Just try uploading a DVD ISO image
 for VM deployment from home to work ...

 The current service offerings generally seem to avoid offering high
 upstream speeds entirely, and so effectively eliminate even the 
 potential to explore the problem on a somewhat less-rigged basis.

Agree - but fundamental change like this doesn't happen overnight.
Whenever we start increasing upload speed, there will be reasonable
latency until users start to take advantage.

So the sooner, the sooner.

Mark.

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread John Osmon

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32:23PM -, John Levine wrote:
[...]
 With the legal content rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
 mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
 therefore the providers can't block it.

Yeah...  I've had a recurring nightmare for a while now.

There are spammers that skate on the edge of legal.  Since they're
legal, I can't drop their traffic anymore -- and they start filling my
transit pipes.

Then, they force me to privately peer with them...

 ...and then sue me to get bigger pipes...


But hey -- at least it's neutral, so that's good.

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

2015-02-27 Thread Jim Richardson

I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA.

At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to
harass an administration's political opponents, right?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:

 On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net 
 wrote:
 Again, well settled.

 It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
 served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a 
 place where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers 
 from all nodes for exactly this reason.

 Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
 be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
 traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?

 Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
 censorship laws on us?


 This is absurd.

 The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that 
 location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out 
 at the source by them.

 The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that 
 location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out 
 there by them.

 In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t 
 read the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by 
 the federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law 
 would still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route 
 traffic to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due 
 process is violating US law.

 Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce 
 anything.

 Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Michael Thomas



On 02/27/2015 02:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

What is that statement based on?  I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric 
speeds.  Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it 
were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic 
patterns because it would make life easier for us.  Remember that most carrier 
backbones are built of symmetric circuits.  It would be nice but the users 
generally download more than they upload.  That is the fact.



Average != Peak.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Mike

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


 On Feb 27, 2015, at 20:58 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
 
 
 
 On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
 How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating 
 content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance 
 but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is 
 that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  
 This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, 
 artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator 
 to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
 
 The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their
 days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind.
 
 But wait...
 
 Mark.

Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.

Owen

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]



On 28/Feb/15 07:15, Philip Dorr wrote:

 WiFi has two separate data rate selections.  The download could be at
 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps.  Or even the other way.  WiFi is
 also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you
 should expect is 150mbps.

This is easy to fix.

If one needs to push more than 150Mbps upload out of their home gateway,
get 802.11ac or run a cable from your favorite spot at the house to a
cheap but fast home switch you can pick up from the store.

The more difficult problem is how your ISP offers you onward uplink to
match what you can push out of your home, as this thread is addressing.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 27/Feb/15 19:07, Mike Hammett wrote:
 More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about 
 symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or 
 cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download. 

But what comes first?

I argue users will respond to their network conditions, without even
knowing it.

I have ADSL at my house. Because I sit on fibre at the office, I always
forget that uploading an IOS or Junos image from my house to the data
centre works terribly from home, until it hits me.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 27/Feb/15 19:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:
 That statement completely confuses me.  Why is asymmetry evil?  Does that not 
 reflect what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that 
 the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN 
 does not reflect reality at all.  Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K 
 video to their friends UHD TV?  Given that all transmission media has some 
 sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more 
 fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download 
 speed.  There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a 
 reflection of what the market wants.  As an ISP I can tell you that a lot 
 more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds.  
 Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 
 down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today?  Don't tell me you 
 want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that 
 requires a faster transmission media.

The person at the other end of my Facetime call was frustrated that they
couldn't see me when I took the call from my house (320Kbps up, ADSL)
yet I could see them perfectly (4Mbps down, ADSL).

Would I like for them to have been able to see me as I did them?

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
 Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
 sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
 people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
 bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.

But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the
upward direction...

When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do
some work without gouging my eyes out.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


 On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
 
 
 
 On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
 Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
 sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
 people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
 bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.
 
 But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the
 upward direction...
 
 When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do
 some work without gouging my eyes out.

No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat 
justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.

I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone 
have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream.

However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.

In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do I 
wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more downstream. 
I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most of the time 
today would be 100M/30M.

YMMV.

Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 27/Feb/15 19:40, Naslund, Steve wrote:
  We also sold SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were 
 generally businesses.

That was because of the way it was priced and marketed.

Mark.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

2015-02-27 Thread Philip Dorr

On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:

 Jack Bates wrote:

 On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

 Folks,

 Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the
edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were
just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE
switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.


 I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.


 Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on a
home network, not the connection to the outside world.  Last time I looked,
commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network attached storage,
media servers, that sort of thing.  (Come to think of it, though, I've
never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is symmetric.)

Commodity switches are symmetric for multiple reasons, but the biggest is
probably because a server could be on any port and a client on any other
port.

WiFi has two separate data rate selections.  The download could be at
300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps.  Or even the other way.  WiFi is
also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you
should expect is 150mbps.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
 No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat 
 justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.

 I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone 
 have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream.

 However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.

 In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do 
 I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more 
 downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most 
 of the time today would be 100M/30M.

Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL,
GPON, e.t.c.

If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the uplink
is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the
operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will
ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With
limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the
issue is a non-starter.

You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just
need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) reasonable
bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes a
choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would ask,
What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON? YMM will really
V, of course.

Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps
up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward)
performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network
operator runs it.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Rob McEwen


Scott Fisher,

I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. 
Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in 
favor of Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about 
as cool as having supported SOPA.


btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... 
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... 
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?


Rob McEwen


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com 
wrote:

Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Ian Bowers

Blah blah politics.   This is Verizon whining.  plain and simple.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:

 Scott Fisher,

 I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
 people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
 Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool as
 having supported SOPA.

 btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
 those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone
 know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?

 Rob McEwen



 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:

 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-
 thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are 
subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the 
hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing 
letters to completely changing the language of something. 

Whenever that day comes... 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:50:16 AM 
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality 

Scott Fisher, 

I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. 
Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in 
favor of Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about 
as cool as having supported SOPA. 

btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... 
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... 
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? 

Rob McEwen 


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com 
wrote: 
 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. 
 
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote: 
 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread David Miller


snarkThis PR reminds me of a story I heard about a few telegraph
operators in the early 1930s.  Mr. Nathan 'Nat' Flax and Mr. Hu Toob
were telegraph operators for the mighty VerizonTelegraph Corporation. 
Misters Flax and Toob were able, through natural abilities and long
practice, able to send telegraph messages faster than any other
operators.  They could dance their telegraph keys so fast that other
operators, with lesser skills, could not reliably receive their
messages.  The VerizonTelegraph Corporation could have upgraded the
skills of all of their operators to be able to receive these messages
and then advertise their faster telegraph transmission speeds as a
benefit to their customers.  However, facing no competitive pressure for
faster telegraph transmission speeds, the VerizonTelegraph Corporation
decided instead to gum up the keys of Flax and Toob using inferior oils,
sand, and bubblegum.  Thus telegraph transmission speeds were slowed and
the VerizonTelegraph Corporation went on to be the most successful
telegraph company in the land today./snark

-DMM

On 02/27/2015 11:09 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
 On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
 btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
 those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote...
 anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
 It was in the FCC story:  the rules (that thick book) will be published
 AFTER all the Commissoners have had a chance to write their
 pair-o-penny's worth and include their screeds with said publication.
 In other words, we have a month or two of quiet before the fur really
 starts to fly.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Majdi S. Abbas

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? 

The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell 
to the duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress,
court or FCC ruling they require...

--msa

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:03:35 -0500, Bruce H McIntosh said:

 The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
 unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.  For the Internet, as such, truly to live
 up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free
 exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User
 *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN.  Just as an
 example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up?  That structure is
 less conducive to free interchange

Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to download
all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.

And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need
a *huge* pipe down.  Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for
content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to
clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to downlink to
fit in the available bandwidth.

You'd be better off arguing from the basis of protocols and applications that
need symmetric bandwidth (for instance, heavy use of Skype and similar, but
with HD video - you'll need as big a pipe for your outbound video as you need
for the inbound). Similar considerations will apply to at least some gaming
models, bittorrent, and so on. You already noted the remote backup issue - keep
focusing on that sort of thing.



pgpcXbeGPW8yI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That statement completely confuses me.  Why is asymmetry evil?  Does that not 
reflect what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that 
the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN 
does not reflect reality at all.  Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K 
video to their friends UHD TV?  Given that all transmission media has some sort 
of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more fair for 
the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download speed.  There is 
no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a reflection of what 
the market wants.  As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more people complaint 
about their download speeds than their upload speeds.  Do you think that you 
(or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 
50 down and 5 up you have today?  Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up 
because that is a different bandwidth total that requires a faster transmission 
media.

Do you actually believe that average users are suffering with a 5 mbps 
upstream?  I don't. I just don't see the average user freely interchanging 
ideas at more than 5 mbps.  I don't feel like Big Brother forced me to watch 
Netflix and my next door neighbor just doesn't provide a lot of engaging HD 
content that I just must see.

By the way, most carriers have plenty of symmetric offerings, it is just that 
they are marketed as business class not because we are evil but because that is 
the normal usage case.  Remember that most offerings were symmetric up until 
DSL became available which allowed us to provide the faster downloads users 
actually wanted.  Modems and TDM circuits were symmetric and everyone hated the 
fact that all this upstream went unused while people longed for better download 
speeds.

Actually if the traffic patterns were actually more symmetric, the carriers 
would be happier because it would create a much more any-to-any flow and this 
net neutrality garbage would never have been an issue.  In the real world, 
there are actually a handful of sites pushing tons of bandwidth in one 
direction to a lot of users.  That is what it is until Joe Average User 
starts creating engaging content.


The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely 
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.  For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to 
its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of 
ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User
*MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN.  Just as an 
example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up?  That structure is less 
conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the 
Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ 
deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and 
uninvolved.  Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully 
impractical for the home user.  So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, 
ISPs, ok?

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Actually most users would perceive a download increase as a speed upgrade 
because they are not hitting the performance limits of the upstream.  In the 
DSL world, there is a maximum reliable speed attainable due to the physics 
involved in high speed transmission over copper.  More speed in one direction 
will definitely cause a corresponding decrease in the other direction, this is 
not a maybe this is a fact.  If a DSL circuit is capable of 10 mbps total 
bandwidth you can slice the direction any way you want as long as it totals 10 
mbps.  Users want more download in general.


I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if they 
did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. 
That may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others.

I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, Enjoy your free speed 
upgrade. They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and gave them a 
slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower upload limit. 500k 
may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to begin with, it's a 
considerable amount.


Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality




On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to download
all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.

And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need
a *huge* pipe down.


Ok, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. The scenario you 
laid out does make sense.



You'd be better off arguing from the basis of protocols and applications that
need symmetric bandwidth (for instance, heavy use of Skype and similar, but
with HD video - you'll need as big a pipe for your outbound video as you need
for the inbound). Similar considerations will apply to at least some gaming
models, bittorrent, and so on. You already noted the remote backup issue - keep
focusing on that sort of thing.


Remote backup is the big bugaboo for me, having had 2 SSDs and a couple 
spinny platters eat themselves in the last year or so.  It's a really 
irksome situation when I can, e.g. backup my entire work machine's /home 
partition to my home server in, say, X hours, but to back my home 
workstation's /home partition (a similar amount of cruft) up to the TSM 
server at work takes 10-15X hours, it makes backing up the home machine 
remotely (something the wife harps on incessantly after the crashes of 
last summer :) ) pretty impractical.  And yes, I know what incremental 
backups are (TSM, remember? :) ) but jumpstarting that first full 
backup is a stumbling block to the whole scenario.   *sigh*



--

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

These standards are for the interoperability of the equipment between vendors.  
There is no technical reason that you could not have one particular speed in 
one direction and any other speed in the opposite direction as long as you do 
not exceed the total bandwidth potential of the loop.  In fact, in the 
pre-standards days of DSL we could dial up any speed you wanted in either 
direction (because the DSLAM and CPE were from the same manufacturer).  In this 
case, the standard reflects what the customer wants, not a technical 
limitation.  If people want a different ratio of up to downlink speed it could 
certainly be done.  ADSL is by definition asymmetric.  We also sold SDSL which 
is symmetric service and the primary buyers were generally businesses.  See 
G.SHDSL  if you want a standard for symmetric DSL.  It's there, it is just not 
a popular.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


Jack,

I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards 
point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL 
(G.dmt or T1.413)


   - ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_T1.413_Issue_2,
   up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s
   - G.dmt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.1, ITU-T G.992.1, up to
   10 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s
   - G.lite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.2, ITU-T G.992.2, more
   noise and attenuation resistant than G.dmt, up to 1,536 kbit/s and
   512 kbit/s
   - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2 (ADSL2),
   ITU-T G.992.3, up to 12 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s
   - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 plus
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2_plus
 (ADSL2+),
   ITU-T G.992.5, up to 24 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread wbn


 On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
 
 
 
 Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
 over the last 50 years under Title II.
 Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
 
 Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.

Me too - I remember when my Dad got the nasty call from ATT because he plugged 
in an unauthorized phone in the house - I guess they could tell from the 
additional resistance on the line. But the phone system worked pretty reliably 
back then - can’t say the same about today’s misc mash of systems.

Anyway, back to the topic… this looks like most telecom debates: people latch 
onto one side or the other, the fight is in the context (problem statement and 
the definitions) but underneath it all there are actually reasonable 
perspectives on each side.

Bill

 Bob Evans
 CTO

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality




On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote:

What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?

The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely 
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.  For the Internet, as such, truly to live 
up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free 
exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User 
*MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN.  Just as an 
example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up?  That structure is 
less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the 
Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content 
THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses 
dull and uninvolved.  Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups 
dreadfully impractical for the home user.  So let's see some symmetry in 
the offerings, ISPs, ok?


--

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:


The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially 
entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.  For the Internet, as such, 
truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world 
through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe 
Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming 
DOWN.  Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up?  
That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more 
conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of 
whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread 
and circus masses dull and uninvolved.  Plus, the slow uplink speeds 
make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user.  So 
let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok?




I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if 
they did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. 
That may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others.


I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, Enjoy your free 
speed upgrade. They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and 
gave them a slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower 
upload limit. 500k may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to 
begin with, it's a considerable amount.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Jack,

I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a
standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds
than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)


   - ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_T1.413_Issue_2,
   up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s
   - G.dmt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.1, ITU-T G.992.1, up to
   10 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s
   - G.lite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.2, ITU-T G.992.2, more
   noise and attenuation resistant than G.dmt, up to 1,536 kbit/s and
   512 kbit/s
   - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2 (ADSL2),
   ITU-T G.992.3, up to 12 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s
   - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 plus
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2_plus
(ADSL2+),
   ITU-T G.992.5, up to 24 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net
wrote:

 On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:


 The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
 unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.  For the Internet, as such, truly to live up
 to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange
 of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the
 same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN.  Just as an example, my service
 at home is what, 50 down/5 up?  That structure is less conducive to free
 interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval
 mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and
 sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved.  Plus,
 the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the
 home user.  So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok?


 I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if
 they did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. That
 may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others.

 I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, Enjoy your free
 speed upgrade. They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and
 gave them a slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower upload
 limit. 500k may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to begin with,
 it's a considerable amount.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 2/27/2015 10:43, wbn wrote:



On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans
b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:




Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been
stifled over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember
having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?


Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your
own.


Me too - I remember when my Dad got the nasty call from ATT because
he plugged in an unauthorized phone in the house - I guess they could
tell from the additional resistance on the line. But the phone system
worked pretty reliably back then - can’t say the same about today’s
misc mash of systems.


We could could the number of ringers.



Anyway, back to the topic… this looks like most telecom debates:
people latch onto one side or the other, the fight is in the context
(problem statement and the definitions) but underneath it all there
are actually reasonable perspectives on each side.


reasonable perspectives are dependent on side--not many will be from 
MY side.


--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 07:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
 
 
 Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
 over the last 50 years under Title II.
 Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
 
 Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
 Bob Evans
 CTO
 

I still have a WeCo desk set that is marked Bell System Property / Not
For Sale

Carterfone, anyone?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 02/27/2015 09:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet 



Cute.  Obviously they never watched the Leno segment where a pair of 
amateur radio ops using Morse code outperformed a couple of teens using 
texting, in terms of speed of communications.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about 
symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or 
cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu 
To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:03:35 AM 
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality 



On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote: 
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? 
 
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely 
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live 
up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free 
exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User 
*MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an 
example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is 
less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the 
Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content 
THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses 
dull and uninvolved. Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups 
dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in 
the offerings, ISPs, ok? 

-- 
 
Bruce H. McIntosh b...@ufl.edu 
Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu 
University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread David Bass

Let's not discuss Comcast and its performance in the customer service 
department so not to completely sidetrack the discussion...

Sent from my iPhone

 On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 
 On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
 
 That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem.  For instance, Comcast has (so far)
 provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my
 bill, and the few times I've had to deal with their support structure it's 
 gone
 amazingly smoothly.  However, I'm told that other people have wildly divergent
 user experiences with them... :)

Last-call DoS/DoS Attack BCOP

2015-02-27 Thread Yardiel D . Fuentes



Hello NANOGers,

Following up on the below effort from last year, the DDoS/DoS Attack BCOP Draft 
document is ready for the last call 2-week period. After this period and unless 
notable objections are raised, the current document will be ratified as such. 
The current document can be found in the NANOG BCOP site -- link to current 
document found below:

http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/BCOP_Drafts

Any additional community-wide comments or feedback in order to ensure quality 
documentation are not only very welcome but encouraged.

Cheers,

Yardiel Fuentes


On Jul 2, 2014, at 6:48 PM, Yardiel D. Fuentes wrote:

 
 
 OK NANOGers,
 
 Some of us got the call to arms from Chris G email below and the NANOG BCOP 
 Committee and now we are interested in generating DoS attack-related Best 
 Common Practices (BCOP) appeal to serve the entire NANOG community.
 
 This document, as other BCOP appeals are expected to be as brief as possible 
 and to the point in order to keep it practical and useful.
 
 The goal is to generate a set of best practices of what to do 
 before/during/after a DoS/DDoS attack -- including what seems to have worked 
 best and what hasn't. Time dedicated to this effort should extensive and 
 participation can be non-real-time given that  it can be done over email with 
 no need for conference calls if desired.
 
 DoS and DDoS attacks have been a topic that have captured high interest from 
 NANOGers based on the archived list topics and email threads. So, now is your 
 time to help shape a NANOG BCOP Appeal on this topic.
 
 Please contact me off-list if you want participate by either sharing your 
 experience, expertise or opinions towards generating a DoS Attack BCOP.
 
 
 Yardiel Fuentes
 yard...@gmail.com
 twitter: #techguane
 
 
 
 On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:25 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
 
 Hail NANOGers!
 
 As most of you hopefully know, NANOG now has a BCOP Ad Hoc Committee
 and we are pushing forward with new BCOPs!
 http://nanog.org/governance/bcop
 
 We currently have three BCOPs in active development:
 
 eBGP configuration, shepherd Bill Armstrong
 Public Peering Exchange update, shepherd Shawn Hsiao
 Ethernet OAM, shepherd Mark Calkins
 
 All three of these nascent BCOPs will be presented in the BCOP Track
 on Monday: http://nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2348
 
 We have also collected a list of Appeals (BCOPs that need to be
 written): http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals
 
 If you would like to help out with any of these BCOPs (or others yet
 to be identified) please join the BCOP mailing list and reach out to
 the shepherd (if applicable of course):
 http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop
 
 Our committee is brand new and we are still finding and smoothing
 wrinkles, etc. We would love your help in any capacity. As a BCOP
 shepherd or SME or just to point out potential pit falls or room for
 improvement, with the process, the wiki, a BCOP or anything at all
 really.
 
 This is a bottom-up, community led effort and it will only succeed
 with your help - join us in creating what I believe will be a vital
 and long-lasting institution!
 
 Cheers,
 ~Chris
 
 -- 
 @ChrisGrundemann
 http://chrisgrundemann.com

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Rob McEwen


On 2/27/2015 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

[VERISON should say...] this won't effect us at all


Until those hundreds of pages are made public, how can anyone possibly 
know if that if that is even a truthful statement? Furthermore, what 
they SAY they intend to do with that authority... and what they COULD 
possibly do with such authority in the not-too-distant future... might 
be frighteningly different.


FOR EXAMPLE... can I borrow your credit card? I'm just going to lock it 
in my safe and not use it until the next time we meet up again? (what I 
say I will do with it.. and what I COULD do with your credit card... 
could be frighteningly different!)


sarcasmBut since we they did such a great job rolling out Obamacare 
with no unintended consequences, I'm sure their promises and good 
intentions for their use of the authority over the packets moving across 
PRIVATELY-OWNED internet infrastructure... that they just voted 
themselves... will be just peachy, right?/sarcasm


BTW - you should see my seashell collection... I keep it spread 
thoughout all the beaches of the entire world. Yesterday, I voted myself 
ownership over all of them.


--
Rob McEwen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:
 Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled over 
 the last 50 years under Title II.
 Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?

No, but I remember in the late '90s ATT demanding I mail them back
the rotary phones that my grandmother had rented for 30 years.

The bigest telcos were the architects of their own grief on Net
Neutrality. No one should feel sorry for them.



On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
 (As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own
 content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common
 carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)

Throttled Netflix to unusability while selling FIOS TV? Still have
much of their settlement-free peering choked hard while paid peering
folks sail on by? Verizon is easily the worst offender.


Regards,
Bill loving those 100ms pings Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us 
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:34:37 AM 
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality 

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein 
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote: 
 Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled over 
 the last 50 years under Title II. 
 Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT? 

No, but I remember in the late '90s ATT demanding I mail them back 
the rotary phones that my grandmother had rented for 30 years. 

The bigest telcos were the architects of their own grief on Net 
Neutrality. No one should feel sorry for them. 



On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman 
mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 
 (As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own 
 content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common 
 carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.) 

Throttled Netflix to unusability while selling FIOS TV? Still have 
much of their settlement-free peering choked hard while paid peering 
folks sail on by? Verizon is easily the worst offender. 


Regards, 
Bill loving those 100ms pings Herrin 

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?

That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem.  For instance, Comcast has (so far)
provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my
bill, and the few times I've had to deal with their support structure it's gone
amazingly smoothly.  However, I'm told that other people have wildly divergent
user experiences with them... :)



pgpJckaqwi59F.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net wrote:
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?

They're still in business?

In all seriousness though, that's a fair question. What are the
downsides of Title II w/o tariffs for for ISPs who aren't engaging in
Bad Behavior?

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 12:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:

That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect
what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that the
average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect
reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K video to their friends UHD TV?
Given that all transmission media has some sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me
that asymmetry is actually more fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs
which is download speed. There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is
just a reflection of what the market wants. As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more
people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds. Do you think that
you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 50
down and 5 up you have today? Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up because that is a
different bandwidth total that requi!

res a fast
er transmission media.

Do you actually believe that average users are suffering with a 5 mbps upstream? I don't. I just
don't see the average user freely interchanging ideas at more than 5 mbps. I don't
feel like Big Brother forced me to watch Netflix and my next door neighbor just doesn't
provide a lot of engaging HD content that I just must see.

I guess I know more than the average number of creative types who
might be interested in things like video collaboration, music/video
recording, sharing around large hunks of content to edit/modify/etc.,
and of course my previously mentioned hobby horse, backing it all up in
a timely manner to someplace maybe not in the path of seasonal
hurricanes :).

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content 
at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't 
think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is that the average 
user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  This has not changed 
throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, 
musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has 
never been a many to many relationship.

On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one 
 creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to 
 download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.

 And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, 
 you need a *huge* pipe down.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Larry Sheldon


http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Scott Fisher

Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com wrote:
 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
 --
 The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

 The fact that they are infallible; and,

 The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes



 --
 Scott



-- 
Scott

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

You want 1930s telecom, you got it. ;-) 

Yes, I know telephone was available then. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



- Original Message -

From: Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com 
To: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:10:58 AM 
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality 

Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. 

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com wrote: 
 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. 
 
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote: 
 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
  
 -- 
 The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: 
 
 The fact that they are infallible; and, 
 
 The fact that they learn from their mistakes. 
 
 
 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Scott 



-- 
Scott

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Joe Loiacono

Got your attention. Made a statement. Good for them.

NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org wrote on 02/27/2015 09:10:58 AM:

 From: Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
 To: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
 Date: 02/27/2015 09:12 AM
 Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
 Sent by: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org

 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com 
wrote:
  Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

  On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net 
wrote:
  http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-
 thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
  --
  The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

  The fact that they are infallible; and,

  The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

  Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

  --
  Scott

 -- 
 Scott

L2 devices can break PMTUD

2015-02-27 Thread Jason Fesler

I've come across two service providers in the last couple of weeks
that have had issues with L2 devices eating IPv6 PMTUD packets.  I am
allowed to share some of the information from one of those service
providers here.

$ISP contacted me to ask more about why PMTUD was being reported as
broken on Android, Linux, Mac - but not being reported on Windows.
After some back and forth I was able to get $ISP to prove that ICMPv6
Packet Too Big messages were not making it to the client.  Windows
just happens to work around this issue.

Ultimately, they narrowed it down to be the access switch.  They
set one up in a lab, and sure enough, they could reproduce the problem
and actually capture packets upstream and downstream of it.

Device in question:  Calix E7-2 and E7-20.

To the vendor's credit, Calix started investigating immediately.  Within a
business week they were able to confirm it was a bug and told the $ISP
 that the next maintenance release should have the fix.

Last comment from $ISP:

I’m not sure if I shared with you that the issue did not occur if the
VLAN was configured as a “TLAN” (transparent LAN).  Of course, in the
VLAN per service model (1:N) that isn’t set because you don’t’ want
everyone flooding their broadcast and multicast traffic to everyone
else.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... 
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... 
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
You were allowed to see the proposed rules in the NPRM's appendix A.  
The RO will state which of those were adopted, which were reconsidered 
after reading the public comments, etc.  Watch docket 14-28 and when the 
RO (or MRO maybe) is released you'll be able to read that.  The RO 
will contain a pointer to which section of 47CFR the rules will be in, 
and you can get those from multiple places.  The easiest way is through 
eCFR (www.ecfr.gov), a part of the GPO, which publishes all these sorts 
of things.


Now, the RO isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out 
47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR.  Here's a link:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3f0ad879cf046fa8e4edd14261ef70f2node=pt47.1.8rgn=div5

That has got to be the smallest full section of 47CFR I've ever read.

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I think you may see more than average numbers of creative types at a university 
environment.  Once you have a full time job you tend to have less time for 
creative endeavors.  I can say that having thousands of customers, the 
content producers are definitely a minority.  I would even guess that most of 
your creative users still download more than they upload.  It is simply math.  
A single person cannot create content as fast as they can consume it.  The 
traffic is even becoming more asymmetric.  You would have to create an awful 
lot of music and video collaboration and lots of documents to rival that 4K 
movie you want to watch.  I can watch a movie every day without too much 
effort.  I would be hard pressed to make that much music or content of my own.

I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring 
at a wall.  Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as 
their backup solution is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently.  
Really, the average user's circuit is sitting idle most of the time in any case 
so if that backup takes all day to complete, no one cares.  On this group we 
have to watch that we do not see ourselves as the average user, we definitely 
are not. 

Bottom line is that symmetric technology is actually easier (and the original 
DSL technology which was mapping symmetric TDM channels onto copper loops), 
users just don't want to buy it in most cases.  ADSL is what users want.

I guess I know more than the average number of creative types who might be 
interested in things like video collaboration, music/video recording, sharing 
around large hunks of content to edit/modify/etc., and of course my 
previously mentioned hobby horse, backing it all up in a timely manner to 
someplace maybe not in the path of seasonal hurricanes :).


Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access
 to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you).

Imagine: We're sorry Mr. Homeowner, you do have a 200 amp electrical
service but we limit power tool usage to 500 milliamps. We're in
negotiation with Home Depot to increase that limit, so you should
complain to them if you're unhappy. Surely you understand how
unreasonable it is for Home Depot to sell you an electric drill and
then pretend like we're supposed to provide you with electricity for
it.

-Bill

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Weekly Routing Table Report

2015-02-27 Thread Routing Analysis Role Account

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com.

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 28 Feb, 2015

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  533931
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  204366
Deaggregation factor:  2.61
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  260046
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 49503
Prefixes per ASN: 10.79
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   36475
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   16258
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6262
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:167
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.5
Max AS path length visible:  44
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55944)  41
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1309
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 429
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:   8696
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:6766
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   24517
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:368
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2732743460
Equivalent to 162 /8s, 226 /16s and 91 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   73.8
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   73.8
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   97.2
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  180550

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   131824
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   38376
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.44
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  137342
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:55718
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5023
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   27.34
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1215
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:869
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 44
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   1320
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  746245248
Equivalent to 44 /8s, 122 /16s and 204 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 87.2

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:176333
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:87229
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.02
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   178302
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 83615
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16499
ARIN Prefixes per

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Rob McEwen


On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ 
buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt 
surprises us and actually represents the people.


I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is 
incredible about this whole debate... is


(1) how few people are actually suffering right now. If net neutrality 
had never made the news... and you went out and talked to 10,000 people, 
and forced them to sit down and write out their top 100 problems in 
life... and compiled all 1 million answers... I doubt internet 
connectivity problems or slow internet speeds would come up more than a 
few times... if even once!


(2) meanwhile, we're such spoiled brats because... the bandwidth usage 
per second... AND the total number of users... AND the usage 
scenarios... AND the amount of hours of usage per day per person... has 
all SKYROCKETED in the past 15 years. It is AMAZING that the ISPs have 
kept pace. And this wasn't easy. My business is spam filtering and 
e-mail hosting... and in that related business... the usage levels per 
dollar of revenue (literally.. the # of MBs per dollar of revenue) is 
order of magnitudes higher than it was 15 years ago... and, like others, 
I've had to do amazing things to keep things flowing well with the same 
basic $/user. (getting faster hardware wasn't even nearly enough) That 
wasn't easy.


(3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet to 
another access points. Yes, the choices are somewhat limited, but there 
are CHOICES (including 4G).. and, btw, there would have been MORE 
choices if the economy wasn't continuing to be anemic over the past 
several years. In contrast, when the government abuses their power, it 
is MUCH harder to move to another country. Plus, a bad ISP can only make 
someone's life so miserable. But an out-of-control government that has 
too much power can fine you, imprison you, IRS audit you, over-regulate 
you, legally (and illegally) spy on you, etc. (Just merely defining 
private networks as if they were public airways... is already a huge 
potential 4th amendment violation... why stop with cables moving data? 
Why not just make your hard drive... or your files in your filing cabnet 
part of their jurisdiction, too? Can they vote that in too? If you think 
not, tell me... what is stopping them that applies DIFFERENTLY from what 
they just did?)


We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an 
already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even 
begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to fix 
an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent 
years.


--
Rob McEwen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

AFC, the only shelf I worked on that would silently allow you to allocate
so much bandwidth to the ADSL cards that voice wouldn't work


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net
wrote:


 On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

 Jack,

 I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a
 standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds
 than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)



 Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC)
 supported 8/1.5 for ADSL and I think 24/1 for ADSL2+. My point wasn't about
 standards, but an actual event. There is a perception that faster download
 is an upgrade, even if your upload is reduced. For the most part, they were
 right. Only a small percentage of the customers were upset at the upload
 decrease.

 The kicker was, the max downlink speed they allowed was 10. If they could
 have supported the right annex, they could have had more upload. Vendor
 limitations and such. :(


 Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote:

From a user point of view, it's not so much asymmetry as it is low peak
upload speeds, which hurt you for things like:

- network backup
- video conferencing (NOT an argument for symmetry, though - your only
sending your stream, you're receiving multiple streams)
- uploading large files (5 minutes to upload the latest version of a
report to the office, sending a large photo album or video of an event,
particularly annoying, I expect to folks who shoot a lot of video

Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been
pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans? Not sure how well
it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON, which tops
out at 155Mbps for uploads - theoretically, I have 25/25 service, but
I've occasionally seen my uploads fall to 100kbps (yes that's a k).
Highly intermittent though - Verizon's techs have been having lots of
fun trying to track things down.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality




On 2015-02-27 12:58, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:

(*SNIP*)


Now, the RO isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out
47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR.  Here's a link:
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3f0ad879cf046fa8e4edd14261ef70f2node=pt47.1.8rgn=div5

Awesome.  Thanks for the info!

--

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Michael Thomas


On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall. 
 Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution 
is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently.  Really, the average user's circuit 
is sitting idle most of the time in any case so if that backup takes all day to complete, 
no one cares.  On this group we have to watch that we do not see ourselves as the 
average user, we definitely are not.



As with everything I want it when I want it. It has nothing to do with 
aggregate bytes, but burst. If I'm uploading 4k content
of baby's first birthday for all of the grandparents, they are not happy 
if the intertoobs busts a gasket.


Mike

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Stephen Sprunk

On 27-Feb-15 10:52, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
 What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?

 The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the
 duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court
 or FCC ruling they require...

This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy
the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises
us and actually represents the people.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice.  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

Jack,

I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a 
standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream 
speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)





Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC) 
supported 8/1.5 for ADSL and I think 24/1 for ADSL2+. My point wasn't 
about standards, but an actual event. There is a perception that faster 
download is an upgrade, even if your upload is reduced. For the most 
part, they were right. Only a small percentage of the customers were 
upset at the upload decrease.


The kicker was, the max downlink speed they allowed was 10. If they 
could have supported the right annex, they could have had more upload. 
Vendor limitations and such. :(



Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu wrote:
 The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
 unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.

Hi Bruce,

We part ways there. I see nothing inherently wrong with asymmetric
connections. I see nothing inherently wrong with whitelist-based
services either: we'll sell you web access service, not general
Internet service. I see nothing inherently wrong will selling
measured-rate service: Gigabit port speed, $X/gigabyte prime time,
free off prime. The idea that any particular Internet-related product
must fit one specific mold like symmetry is abhorrent to me.

BUT

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

Monopoly abuse is Bad Behavior. Be it cross-subsidy (make competitive
overbuilding impossible by covering infrastructure cost with funds
from other high-margin products) product tying (that fiber optic
channel is bundled with our version of Internet service alone) or
double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access
to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you).

These are the real evils in the ISP marketplace.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 2/27/2015 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content 
at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't 
think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is that the average 
user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  This has not changed 
throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, 
musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has 
never been a many to many relationship.


It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload 
to begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. 
How many more people would stream to twitch or youtube or skype if they 
didn't have to hear this, Are you uploading? You're slowing down the 
download! I can't watch my movie!



Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


Naslund, Steve wrote:

How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content 
at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't 
think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is that the average 
user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  This has not changed 
throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, 
musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has 
never been a many to many relationship.




Hmm... my copy of crashplan is reporting 8mps of upload right now. 
Granted, that's not average, but it can be sustained for a while, 
whenever I shut down a virtual machine (Parallels on a Mac, the entire 
virtual image takes a while to back up - not all that uncommon).  I also 
expect that most folks who buy a network backup service just use the 
default settings for when to do backups - which suggests an awful lot of 
backup traffic going on at the same time every night.


Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 2015-02-27 12:49, Stephen Sprunk wrote:


This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy
the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises
us and actually represents the people.


*snrk* Really?  Ok, I'll let my Inner Cynic out for a romp - the US 
government generally tends to represent only itself, which is not 
precisely the same thing as the people.


I'll go way out on a limb and post a quote from a polemic snark-piece 
recently posted on the Net Neutrality decision:


===
Why is this so difficult to understand? When forced to choose between 
big corporations and big government, you should never choose big 
government because whatever you don’t like about the big corporations 
WILL ALSO BE PRESENT IN BIG GOVERNMENT, ONLY WORSE, AND WITH GUNS.

===

And when the big corporations and the big government are thoroughly 
cross-pollinated, we're doubly screwed.  Rest assured, the Verizons and 
ATTs in the world will make out just FINE as the FCC starts regulating 
the crap out of the situation. The Rest of Us™?  Probably not so much. :)



--

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance


On 02/27/2015 01:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
These regulations are found in 47CFR§6, not 47CFR§8, which is the 
subject of docket 14-28.


Not having read the actual RO in docket 14-28, so basing the following 
statements on the NPRM instead.  Since the NPRM had 47CFR§8 limited to 
47CFR§8.11, and the actual amendment going to 47CFR§8.17, the adopted 
rules are different than originally proposed.  You can read the proposed 
regulations yourself in FCC 14-61 ( 
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521129942 ) pages 66-67.  
Yes, two pages.  The actual regulations are a bit, but not much, longer.


47CFR§6 was already there before docket 14-28 came about.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given
symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto
deployment reality.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:

 How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating
 content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance
 but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is
 that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.
 This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers,
 artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator
 to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

 On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
  Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
  creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to
  download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50
 down.
 
  And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
  you need a *huge* pipe down.

 Steven Naslund
 Chicago IL

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an 
already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even 
begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to fix 
an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in 
recent years.


You really should read 47CFR§8.  It won't take you more than an hour or 
so, as it's only about 8 pages.


The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires 
the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the 
complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, 
etc).  Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are 
pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Mel Beckman

Bill,

This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for 
all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full 
bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in 
order to do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access 
the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second, then broadband 
connections would cost thousands of dollars per month.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet distribution 
will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin 
b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us
 wrote:

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Mike Hale

(3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet
to another access points.

But they can't.  That's the point.  There is a massive dearth of
legitimate competition in the broadband space for the vast majority of
our population.  And it's that lack of competition that has allowed
Comcast et al to become the abusive bad actors they are.

We're not replacing the ISPs with the Government.  We're saying, in
effect, that in exchange for government monopolies allowing you to
become as big and profitable as you are, you now have to be slightly
less douchy than you have been.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
 On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

 This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy
 the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us
 and actually represents the people.


 I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is incredible
 about this whole debate... is

 (1) how few people are actually suffering right now. If net neutrality had
 never made the news... and you went out and talked to 10,000 people, and
 forced them to sit down and write out their top 100 problems in life... and
 compiled all 1 million answers... I doubt internet connectivity problems or
 slow internet speeds would come up more than a few times... if even once!

 (2) meanwhile, we're such spoiled brats because... the bandwidth usage per
 second... AND the total number of users... AND the usage scenarios... AND
 the amount of hours of usage per day per person... has all SKYROCKETED in
 the past 15 years. It is AMAZING that the ISPs have kept pace. And this
 wasn't easy. My business is spam filtering and e-mail hosting... and in that
 related business... the usage levels per dollar of revenue (literally.. the
 # of MBs per dollar of revenue) is order of magnitudes higher than it was 15
 years ago... and, like others, I've had to do amazing things to keep things
 flowing well with the same basic $/user. (getting faster hardware wasn't
 even nearly enough) That wasn't easy.

 (3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet to
 another access points. Yes, the choices are somewhat limited, but there are
 CHOICES (including 4G).. and, btw, there would have been MORE choices if the
 economy wasn't continuing to be anemic over the past several years. In
 contrast, when the government abuses their power, it is MUCH harder to move
 to another country. Plus, a bad ISP can only make someone's life so
 miserable. But an out-of-control government that has too much power can fine
 you, imprison you, IRS audit you, over-regulate you, legally (and illegally)
 spy on you, etc. (Just merely defining private networks as if they were
 public airways... is already a huge potential 4th amendment violation...
 why stop with cables moving data? Why not just make your hard drive... or
 your files in your filing cabnet part of their jurisdiction, too? Can they
 vote that in too? If you think not, tell me... what is stopping them that
 applies DIFFERENTLY from what they just did?)

 We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already
 out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to
 understand the extend of how they could be abused... to fix an industry
 that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.

 --
 Rob McEwen




-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Stephen R. Carter

The funniest thing about Verizon complaining about Title II, is that they
used Title II to roll out their FIOS FTTP.

I really am unsure of what they expected the outcome to be, and further
proves the point of how big of a mess ISP¹s in this country are.

Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator  | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming
Commission
1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348
Phone 269.792.1773 







On 2/27/15, 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:

I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:

We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our
competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good
business practices on others

(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their
own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a
common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)

I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of
the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband
builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni
networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out).

Miles Fidelman

Scott Fisher wrote:
 I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
 method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
 just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
 Scott Fisher,

 I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate.
Some
 people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
 Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool
as
 having supported SOPA.

 btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
those
 hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone
know
 if that is available to the public now? If so, where?

 Rob McEwen



 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:

 
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-mov
e-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet





-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra



brhrfont face='Arial' color='Gray' size='1'The information contained in 
this electronic transmission (email) is confidential information and may be 
subject to attorney/client privilege. It is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity named above. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE 
IS PROHIBITED, except by the intended recipient. Attempts to intercept this 
message are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications 
Privacy Act (ECPA), which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment 
and/or civil damages./font

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 06:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
 

OK.  The Morse code I knew about, from news stories.  What I didn't know
is that the translation would be PDF of 1930s-style typewritten
transcription on an old Underwood Portable that had seen much, much
better days.

Someone at Verizon is trying to make lemonade out of what they perceive
as bitter, bitter lemons...

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:

We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our
competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good
business practices on others

(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their
own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a
common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)

I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of
the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband
builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni
networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out).

Miles Fidelman

Scott Fisher wrote:

I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:

Scott Fisher,

I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool as
having supported SOPA.

btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those
hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know
if that is available to the public now? If so, where?

Rob McEwen

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
wrote:

Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 07:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
 I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things
 like CALEA.

The first indications of any changes would be Cisco and Juniper
announcing CALEA products in their low- and mid-line network products.
Or there may be some near-startups that announce bolt-on network
products to provide CALEA capability for those people who don't have
deep pockets for new gear.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 2/27/2015 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are 
subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the 
hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing 
letters to completely changing the language of something.

Whenever that day comes...



I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things 
like CALEA.


On the other hand, I hope they ban the ability to pay for ESPN3 at an 
ISP level. I'm tired of the complaints from ISPs who can't get it and 
I'm tired of paying a portion of other people's access to it.



Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Michael O Holstein


 I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
 people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
 Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool as
 having supported SOPA.

Morse code is just a different binary encoding. 
Also, commercial AM broadcasting started in the 20s, a couple decades past 
Marconi.

Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled over the 
last 50 years under Title II. 
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?

-Mike.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Bob Evans



 Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
 over the last 50 years under Title II.
 Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?

Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Bob Evans
CTO

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


Bob Evans wrote:



Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
over the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?

Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.



Let's also remember that it was regulatory action that enabled us to 
connect modems and phones to ATT's network.  (Can you say Carterphone 
decision)  And it was  Title II regulation, and the Computer Inquiries, 
that allowed the Internet to be assembled from circuits leased from ATT 
long lines.


Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Scott Fisher

I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
 Scott Fisher,

 I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
 people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
 Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool as
 having supported SOPA.

 btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those
 hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know
 if that is available to the public now? If so, where?

 Rob McEwen



 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
 wrote:


 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet





-- 
Scott

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
 btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
 those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote...
 anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?

It was in the FCC story:  the rules (that thick book) will be published
AFTER all the Commissoners have had a chance to write their
pair-o-penny's worth and include their screeds with said publication.
In other words, we have a month or two of quiet before the fur really
starts to fly.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Joe Hamelin

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com
 wrote:


 Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.


But that didn't stop most of us old timers on this list.  The first
digital circuit that I played with as a kid was an old Strowger switch
pulled from a junk yard.

--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
 On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us
  wrote:
 Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
 Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
 your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
 at X megabits per second.

 This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible
 for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full
 bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer

Hi Mel,

Respectfully, that's a straw man argument. You alter the parameters of
my criticism then proceed to show how the altered argument is
unreasonable.

All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water
and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription
model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the
cleanup? They do.

I have some unfortunate first-hand experience with this.


 Anyone who doesn't understand [oversubscription]
 will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.

You said it, not me.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Daniel Taylor


But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.

It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal 
upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra 
measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.


Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when 
that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.


On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given
symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto
deployment reality.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:


How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating
content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance
but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is
that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.
This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers,
artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator
to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to
download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50

down.

And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
you need a *huge* pipe down.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL





--
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

While I view that statement with trepidation, my first guess would one that
isn't in violation of state or federal law.  About the only things I can
think off hand, ie stuff we get told to take down as hosters today, are
sites violating copyright law and child pornography.  I hope that we don't
see any additions to that list.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu wrote:



 On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:

 What's a lawful web site?

  Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, Who gets
 to decide day to day the answer to that question? :)

 --
 
 Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
 Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
 University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Mel Beckman

Bill,

In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address the assertion 
you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps whenever you demand it, by explaining 
the real world essential practice of oversubscription.

Let's say you decide to start your own ISP, call it BillsNet. You buy a 1Gbps 
upstream pipe from Level3 for $6,000/month (a realistic price delivered to your 
facilities over fiber). You run wireless links to your customers via 100Mbps 
WiFi and a multi-gigabit redundant WiFi backbone, so that your only last-mile 
recurring cost is your labor to maintain your WISP network. 

Suppose, generously, that the going rate for 5x50Mbps broadband is $100/mo in 
your area (it's likely less). Only 20 customers can operate at full speed on 
this network (20 x 50Mbps = 1,000Mbps), so following your rule, you have to cap 
your income at $2,000/mo. You're losing $4,000/mo and you haven't yet spent a 
dime on salaries, hardware, deployment, or maintenance.

I call this the iron man argument. ;)

 -mel


On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:54 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
 On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us
 wrote:
 Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
 Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
 your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
 at X megabits per second.
 
 This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible
 for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full
 bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer
 
 Hi Mel,
 
 Respectfully, that's a straw man argument. You alter the parameters of
 my criticism then proceed to show how the altered argument is
 unreasonable.
 
 All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water
 and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription
 model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the
 cleanup? They do.
 
 I have some unfortunate first-hand experience with this.
 
 
 Anyone who doesn't understand [oversubscription]
 will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
 
 You said it, not me.
 
 Regards,
 Bill Herrin
 
 
 
 -- 
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality


On 2/27/2015 1:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top
10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended seconds on their upstream
than we do on the downstream.  These observations are based on ~500k
residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH
(mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.





It is my thought that when people ask for symmetrical circuits, they are 
really saying that they would like to see a higher upload. What they 
have is too slow for their needs. This is especially true for older 
technology that isn't in danger of being replaced anytime soon. Ideally, 
I suspect that most people would prefer a more variable approach, 
allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for upload and download and 
any combination in between.


Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download frequency 
to send something quicker. Once it gets past last mile, it is usually 
symmetric anyways. It's funny to watch someone spend an entire day 
uploading a video to youtube, though. Reminds me of the dialup days; 
just more data.


Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Steve,

I'd be up in arms if all I had was a 1mbps uplink :)

Having said that, the 10 mbps I get from Comcast right now is more than I
need to do remote desktop, code check ins, and host of atypical uploading.

I am absolutely not against good upstream rates!  I do have a problem with
people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply
because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:

  Scott,

 Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to
 use it. I know it is a real
 pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to
 work across my VPN.

 Steve

 On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

 Daniel,

 Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a myth, after all understanding most
 customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around.
 If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and
 they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this
 business.

 Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top
 10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended seconds on their upstream
 than we do on the downstream.  These observations are based on ~500k
 residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH
 (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.


 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum(678) 507-5000
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com 
 dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote:


  But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.

 It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal
 upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures
 unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.

 Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when
 that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.

 On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:


  This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given
 symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the future,
 especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto
 deployment reality.


 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum(678) 507-5000
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 

 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com 
 snasl...@medline.com
 wrote:

  How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating

  content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home
 surveillance
 but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is
 that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.
 This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to
 readers,
 artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video
 creator
 to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

 On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:


  Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
 creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to
 download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50


  down.


  And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
 you need a *huge* pipe down.


  Steven Naslund
 Chicago IL




  --
 Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, 
 inc.dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711



 --
 Stephen Clark
 *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
 Director of Technology
 Phone: 813-579-3200
 Fax: 813-882-0209
 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
 http://www.netwolves.com

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Mel Beckman

Kevin,

   It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to provide you with X Mbps if that was 
advertised as UP TO x Mbps (which is exactly how every broadband provider 
advertises its service -- check your contract). We're not talking about the 
Internet's capacity here. We're talking about the physical limits of an ISPs 
own uplink connection to the Internet. That costs much more than the income 
from the number of users it takes to saturate the uplink. 

Any discussion of Internet backbone limitations, while these limitations do in 
fact exist, has nothing to do with ISP oversubscription, which some are 
claiming is deceitful. It's not deceitful, it's essential.

See my earlier iron man example to Bill.

 -mel


On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:49 AM, McElearney, Kevin 
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com
 wrote:

 [Sorry for top-posting]
 
 I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
 responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
 you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
 Broadband America. 
 http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me
 asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
 
 That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the
 Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.  While ISPs do take
 the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
 certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have server/site
 issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
 contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
 limitations, etc.
 
 What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
 transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
 consumer QoE.
 
   - Kevin
 
 On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
 
 Bill,
 
 This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
 possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
 their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
 each customer in order to do everything reasonably within your power to
 make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
 second, then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
 month.
 
 Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
 distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
 practices.
 
 On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
 b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us
 wrote:
 
 Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
 Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
 your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
 at X megabits per second.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality




On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:

What's a lawful web site?

Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, Who gets 
to decide day to day the answer to that question? :)


--

Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer  http://net-services.ufl.edu
University of Florida Network Services   352-273-1066

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread William Waites

It certainly seems to be Friday.

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:27:08 +, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com 
said:

 That statement completely confuses me.  Why is asymmetry evil?
 Does that not reflect what Joe Average User actually needs and
 wants? ... There is no technical reason that it can't be
 symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants.

This is a self-fulling prophecy. As long as the edge networks have
asymmetry built into them popular programs and services will be
developed that are structured to account for this. As long as the
popular programs and services are made like this, the average user
will not know that they might want something different.

It doesn't have to be this way, its an artefact of a choice on the
part of the larger (mostly telephone company) ISPs in the 1990s. It
also happens to suit capital because it is more obvious how to make
money at the expense of the users with an asymmetric network and
centralised Web 2.0 style services.

Thankfully the cracks are starting to show. I was pleased to hear the
surprised and shocked praise when I installed a symmetric radio
service to someone in the neighbourhood and it was no longer painful
for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing
doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a server) is on
good, symmetric bandwidth. These are just boring mundane
applications. Imagine the more interesting ones that might emerge if
the restriction of asymmetry was no longer commonplace...

-w

--
/\| William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk
\ /  ASCII Ribbon Campaign |  School of Informatics
 Xagainst HTML e-mail  | University of Edinburgh
/ \  (still going) | http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/

--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


pgpxjWHpOCKGX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Steve Clark


Scott,

Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to use 
it. I know it is a real
pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to work 
across my VPN.

Steve

On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a myth, after all understanding most
customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around.
If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and
they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this
business.

Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top
10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended seconds on their upstream
than we do on the downstream.  These observations are based on ~500k
residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH
(mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote:


But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.

It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal
upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures
unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.

Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when
that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.

On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:


This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given
symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto
deployment reality.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:

  How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating

content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home
surveillance
but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is
that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.
This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to
readers,
artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video
creator
to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:


Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to
download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50


down.


And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
you need a *huge* pipe down.


Steven Naslund
Chicago IL




--
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711





--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread McElearney, Kevin

[Sorry for top-posting]

I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
Broadband America. 
http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me
asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf

That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the
Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.  While ISPs do take
the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have server/site
issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
limitations, etc.

What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
consumer QoE.

- Kevin

On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:

Bill,

This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
each customer in order to do everything reasonably within your power to
make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
second, then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
month.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
practices.

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
b...@herrin.usmailto:b...@herrin.us
 wrote:

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Daniel Taylor

The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate 
resources.
But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link 
to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits 
available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.


On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a myth, after all understanding 
most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases 
around.  If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a 
build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer 
of us in this business.


Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, 
ie top 10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended seconds on their 
upstream than we do on the downstream.  These observations are based 
on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America 
using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com 
mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote:


But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.

It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of
equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take
extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be
able to do so.

Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken
when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master
musician.

On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers
are given
symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the
future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de
facto
deployment reality.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve
snasl...@medline.com mailto:snasl...@medline.com
wrote:

How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average
neighborhood creating
content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is
home surveillance
but I don't think you want everyone accessing that
anyway.  The truth is
that the average user does not create content that anyone
needs to see.
This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of
authors to readers,
artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube
cat video creator
to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many
relationship.

On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new
content.  If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5
up.  But to
download all the new content from the other 9, they
need close to 50

down.

And when you expand to several billion people creating
new content,
you need a *huge* pipe down.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL




-- 
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal

Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com
http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711





--
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 I have to take exception to your example.

 Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
 oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of
 all their customers peak potential demand, at least from normal demand
 standpoint.

Hi Scott,

Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to
meet peak normal demand? That would certainly make ISP operating
models unique among public utilities.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality