date:20140721

Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and 
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment: 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
 ]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1] 
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2] 
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Petach

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Michael Conlen m...@conlen.org wrote:


 On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

  - Original Message -
  From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 
  But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
  there is no such thing as THE Internet.
 
  The Internet as the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
 transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP
 packet from'
  -- Seth Breidbart.

 I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence
 classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’
 is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x
 ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y

 In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached
 by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or
 an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not
 hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.


One might argue, however, that Seth's definition
would hold for the original, open, end-to-end
connectivity model of the internet; and that by
extension, what many people think of as being
on the internet, huddling behind their NATs and
their firewalls, is not really truly on the internet.

Yes, I realize that's a much narrower definition,
and most people would argue against it; but it
does rather elegantly frame The Internet
as the set of fully-connected, unshielded
IP connected hosts.




 Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’
 partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.


Not quite; the closure *does* create an
equivalence class--it's just not the one
you were expecting it to be.  That is,
the fully-connected internet equivalence
class of Seth's definition is smaller than
what you'd like to consider The Internet
to be, but it is a valid equivalence class.


 Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest
 subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations
 hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.

 That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.


And one might argue that it's a more liberal
interpretation of The Internet than what Seth
had intended.

As a though exercise...imagine a botnet
owner that used encrypted payloads in ICMP
packets for the command-and-control messages
for her botnet army; no 'ack' is required, the
messages simply need to make it from the
control node to the zombies.  She pops up
a control node using unallocated, unannounced
IP space; the host sends out control messages,
never expecting to get responses, as the IP
address it's using has no corresponding route
in the global routing table.  Is that control host
part of The Internet?

Seth's definition makes it clear that control
host, spewing out its encrypted ICMP control
messages in a one-way stream, is *not* part
of The Internet.  Do we concur?  Or is there
some notion of that control host still being
somehow part of The Internet because it's
able to send evil nasty icky packets at the
rest of the better-behaved Internet, even if
we can't respond in any way?

I find myself leaning towards Seth's definition,
and supporting the idea that even though that
host is sending a stream of IP traffic at my
network, it's not part of The Internet--even
though that conflicts with what my security
team would probably say (if it can attack me
with IP datagrams, it's part of the internet.).

It's actually a deceptively tough question
to wrestle with.


 —
 Mike


Thanks!

Matt

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

Anyway, follow the money. Blackburn’s largest career donors are ..
PACs affiliated with ATT ... ($66,750) and Comcast ... ($36,600). ...
Blackburn has also taken $56,000 from the National Cable
Telecommunications Association.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to
blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
- jra

On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com wrote:
There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon
and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the
FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are
political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably
political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
647 1274

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Jared Mauch


On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to 
 blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?

I certainly don’t think it hurts.. but in general I’ll say the FiOS going 
symmetrical is very pro-consumer and pro-internet and in that part I suspect we 
will both agree.

- Jared

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net

 On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 
  Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an
  attempt to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
 
 I certainly don’t think it hurts.. but in general I’ll say the FiOS
 going symmetrical is very pro-consumer and pro-internet and in that
 part I suspect we will both agree.

Well, if they are provisioned for it, and if they don't (continue to)
impose the silly you can't run a server on a consumer circuit
crap they traditionally have.

I just have no faith that all the dominos are lined up in the proper
direction...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

In an organization as large as Verizon there are many reasons why a policy
gets changed. I'm certain that there are product guys who were saying our
customers want this. I'm sure there were marketing folks saying we can
build a marketing campaign around it. I am equally certain that some there
were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position
to argue from if we need to against Netflix.

I'll be watching to see how well this roll out goes. If they didn't
re-engineer their splits (or plan for symmetrical from the beginning) they
could run into some problems because the total speed on a GPON port is
asymmetrical, about 2.5 gbps down to 1.25 gbps up.

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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt
to blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
- jra

On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com
wrote:
There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon
and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the
FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are
political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably
political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]

https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
647 1274

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to
blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
- jra

On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com
wrote:

There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the
FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are
political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably
political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth
Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
647 1274

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Petach

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

 In an organization as large as Verizon there are many reasons why a policy
 gets changed.  I'm certain that there are product guys who were saying our
 customers want this.  I'm sure there were marketing folks saying we can
 build a marketing campaign around it.  I am equally certain that some there
 were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position
 to argue from if we need to against Netflix.


Interestingly enough, this seems to be coupled
with a statement that Verizon will be deploying
Netflix CDN boxes into their network:

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selective-amnesia-on-peering

Fortunately, Verizon and Netflix have found a way to avoid the congestion
problems that Level 3 is creating by its refusal to find “alternative
commercial terms.” We are working diligently on directly connecting Netflix
content servers into Verizon’s network so that we both can keep the
interests of our mutual customers paramount.


Kudos to Netflix for getting Verizon to agree
to host openconnect boxes internally!  This
beats the business plan I was formulating
to sell $1/month VPN connections to
Netflix users on Verizon to bypass the
congested links.  ^_^;

Matt





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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
 Interestingly enough, this seems to be coupled
 with a statement that Verizon will be deploying
 Netflix CDN boxes into their network:

 http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/level-3s-selective-amnesia-on-peering

 Fortunately, Verizon and Netflix have found a way to avoid the congestion
 problems that Level 3 is creating by its refusal to find “alternative
 commercial terms.”

So what has changed for Level 3 [in the 2005 Cogent peering dispute]?

They lost the argument with Cogent. They figured out their customers
were too valuable to risk their wrath over a desire to play chicken
with someone willing to go the distance.

That's what changed.

Playing chicken with a large peer is a bad idea. Playing chicken with
the FCC now that it's taken an interest is a worse one.

I'm sorta surprised the class action lawyers aren't all over this. It
seems to me a few million Verizon end-users are owed partial refunds
of tens to hundreds of dollars each due to the admitted discriminatory
constraints Verizon has placed on their data traffic to netflix and
everybody else using the same networks netflix uses.

I'm one of them. My Verizon connection became unusable for netflix a
couple months ago and has been unusable for gaming every evening for
the last few weeks. I'm only using a few dozen kilobits (paid for 25
mbps) for gaming, but the packet loss at the congested peering links
kills it dead.

If I didn't also have Cox I'd be ready to blow a gasket. There's a
quality operation.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks

Hi Jay,

Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.

Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Christopher Morrow

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 I am equally certain that some there
 were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better position
 to argue from if we need to against Netflix.

wasn't this part of the verizon network  specifically NOT the red part
in the verizon blog?
(so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to verizon/netflix issues)

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Mikael Abrahamsson


On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained 
to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications 
infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and 
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the 
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. Like 
public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight despite the 
cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.


While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I would 
definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be exactly 
that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode fiber cabling, 
aggregating thousands of households per location, preferrably tens of 
thousands.


It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and in 
these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different 
technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can 
provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run 
hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. 
Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable in 
30 years as it is day 1 after installation.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Bill,

I've certainly seen poor execution from public operators, but I have also
seen several that were well run and over the course of years (in one case
decades).  They're not right in all cases, but to simply say it can't be
done well is false.  Now, we do have to be sensitive to public -- private
competition but in cases where there is already a monopoly or even worse no
broadband service I can't see how keeping muni's out helps consumers.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
  Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
  to own fiber networks

 Hi Jay,

 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.

 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin


 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks

Hi Jay,

Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.

Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.



Let's see:
- municipal water supplies work just fine
- about 20% of US power is supplied by municipally owned electric 
utilities, for about 18% less cost (statistics might be a little stale, 
I haven't checked recently)

- about the only gigabit FTTH in the country comes from muni networks
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the 
big players have any intent of deploying anything


Miles Fidelman

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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Blake Dunlap

My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

-Blake

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks

 Hi Jay,

 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.

 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin


 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Kaufman

I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or 
highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)

 On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
 
 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
 
 -Blake
 
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks
 
 Hi Jay,
 
 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.
 
 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
 
 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
 
 Regards,
 Bill Herrin
 
 
 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
 wrote:
  Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for
  municipalities to own fiber networks
 
 Hi Jay,
 
 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.

Sure it does, Bill.  

Retake civics, will you?  Read about The Public Good, and tell me how
profit-driven corporations -- especially public ones -- are the orgs
best suited to protect and support it.

 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

Did you miss, perhaps, the 2 month long thread I started end of 2012,
concerning building out a L1/L2 fiber muni?
 
 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

I guess you didn't.

May 6 fiber installers dig up the street in front of your house over 
the next 2 years.

 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Possibly not.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Ray Soucy

Agree.

I'd go a step further and say that Dark Fiber as a Public Utility
(which is regulated to provide open access at published rates and
forbidden from providing its own lit service directly) is the only way
forward.

That said, I don't think it's a good idea to see the municipality
provide the fiber and Internet access.  There needs to be some
separation to promote an equal playing field.  That isn't to say the
town couldn't provide their own service within the framework of being
a customer of the utility, which would be helpful as a price-check and
anchor provider.

Just need to make sure it's setup to promote competition not kill it.

For rural areas where the population density is too low to deliver an
acceptable ROI for companies like Verizon or Comcast, I think
municipal dark fiber to the home is the only hope.

Let the ISPs focus on the cost and investment of the optics and
routers to drive up bandwidth instead of trying to absorb the cost of
a 20 year fiber plant in 3 years.

On a side note, this model actually makes it possible for a smaller
ISP to actually be viable again, which might not be a bad thing.


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

 -Blake

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks

 Hi Jay,

 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.

 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin


 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?



-- 
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System

T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531

MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
www.maineren.net

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
 wrote:
  I am equally certain that some there
  were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better
  position to argue from if we need to against Netflix.
 
 wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part
 in the verizon blog?
 (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to
 verizon/netflix issues)

I made the argument, so I'll clarify.

One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem
was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball
network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how
their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're
complaining about now.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com

 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
 
 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

It's not; Bill simply wasn't assuming L1(/L2) restriction, since not 
doing so better suited his Corporations Are God; Governments Suck 
argument.

I will note that in fact, the power wires are usually owned by a 
franchised monopoly, and sometimes the water pipes.  Even so, it's the
Natural Monopoly that's the issue: you don't want to dig up the road
every 15 minutes, especially for players who might fold in the middle.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Hugo Slabbert


+1

A municipality nearby adopted this, and I personally like the model.

They built out their own fiber, largely for their own purposes to connect 
municipal buildings and (I would assume) consolidate their internet access as 
well as opposed to a bunch of discrete retail-type connections.  Since their 
laying conduit and fiber anyway, they just lay down a bigger bundle while 
they're down there; bonus points for piggy-backing on existing infrastructure 
projects that already dig up the road anyway.  The fiber is terminated in one 
of two city-run DCs based on geography, and any provider can get space there 
and pick up a pair or more to an on-net building.  Pricing is very reasonable 
($400/month per pair) and the colo and power are actually free provided you're 
actually paying for a pair.  There's a ring between the two facilities, so you 
basically just have to work out your transport to one or both facilities, drop 
in a switch or two and you're off.


New multi-tenant construction gets built out by default.  If a building is not 
yet on-net, submit it to the department running the dark net; if it's a 
feasible build, the city actually foots the bill for the build-out and you 
still just pay your $400/month/pair.


They intentionally structured it to only do L1; they don't want to get into the 
business of running L2 or L3 services and explicitly do not want to compete 
with private providers.  Infrastructure and utilities are their game, and the 
city is doing it as a play to encourage competition and draw in more 
connectivity options for residents and businesses.  The figures I heard was 
their their break-even is/was at the 3-year mark.  Even if they don't bring in 
massive revenue from providers participating, their still saving money compared 
to their previous connectivity solutions.


So:
- level playing field  greater competition: L1 is available to anyone at a 
 reasonable cost, so small players can participate and differentiate on 
anything  L1
- providers are welcome to participate or not: you want to run your own fiber?  
 Sure, no problem: business as usual in that department

- city doesn't compete with private business

From what I gather it's targeted more at active Ethernet to multi-tenant 
residential or business locations rather than being a pass every house to 
enable PON setup, but what's not to love about this?


--
Hugo

On Mon 2014-Jul-21 20:58:48 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were 
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint 
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable 
and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on 
the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure 
side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and 
freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect 
simile.


While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I 
would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be 
exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode 
fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, 
preferrably tens of thousands.


It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and 
in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different 
technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can 
provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run 
hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. 
Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable 
in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Jay,

I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had
anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a
cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to work
with the access technology.  The group responsible for peering and other
transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale by
decades.  Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been the
norm world wide for a very long time.  We're only now getting to a place
where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none of
the common approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for
Ethernet.  I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco
vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available.

Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said that
this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing
causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they went
after transit is a mistake IMO.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
  From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com

  On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
  wrote:
   I am equally certain that some there
   were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better
   position to argue from if we need to against Netflix.
 
  wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part
  in the verizon blog?
  (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to
  verizon/netflix issues)

 I made the argument, so I'll clarify.

 One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem
 was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball
 network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how
 their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're
 complaining about now.

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC
 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
 Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647
 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've
suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade
and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about
my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the
service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing
department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the
lawyers.

And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help
folks in a truly remote location.

 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

It isn't.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Harlan Stenn

Greg Walden (R-OR) is similarly funded by the cable and telecom folks,
and is also loud and clear that he thinks we should forget about net
neutrality and let the companies do what is best.

H

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Sure.  But you're making too much stew from one oyster; *I* did not 
*assert* that this was their motivation for doing so. 

I simply noted that it's tied into one of the arguments I'd seen for
why they had a problem, and ameliorates it from their POV.

Different thing.

Cheers,
-- jra

- Original Message -
 From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
 To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
 Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:49:11 PM
 Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
 Jay,
 
 I really doubt that the guys who designed Verizon's access network had
 anything to do or say about their peering nor do I believe there was a
 cross departmental design meeting to talk about optimal peering to
 work
 with the access technology. The group responsible for peering and
 other
 transit operations and planning probably pre-dated FiOS being at scale
 by
 decades. Asymmetrical networks from telecom operators is and has been
 the
 norm world wide for a very long time. We're only now getting to a
 place
 where that consideration is even being talked about and even now none
 of
 the common approaches for access give symmetrical traffic except for
 Ethernet. I'd like to see EPON more common, but the traditional telco
 vendors either don't offer it or its just now becoming available.
 
 Again, I have no doubt that _after the fact_ someone at Verizon said
 that
 this is a good because it helps with the Netflix flap, but drawing
 causality between their prior asymmetrical offering and the way they
 went
 after transit is a mistake IMO.
 
 
 Scott Helms
 Vice President of Technology
 ZCorum
 (678) 507-5000
 
 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
 
 
 
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 
  - Original Message -
   From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
 
   On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
   wrote:
I am equally certain that some there
were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a
better
position to argue from if we need to against Netflix.
  
   wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red
   part
   in the verizon blog?
   (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to
   verizon/netflix issues)
 
  I made the argument, so I'll clarify.
 
  One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's
  problem
  was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an
  eyeball
  network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how
  their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing
  they're
  complaining about now.
 
  Cheers,
  -- jra
  --
  Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
  j...@baylink.com
  Designer The Things I Think RFC
  2100
  Ashworth  Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
  Rover DII
  St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647
  1274
 

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 I'd say your experience is anomalous.  I don't know which township you're
 in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local
 officials.

Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a
long and studied history of success.  Who do I vote for? The officials
that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the
problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate
increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Bill,

If your issues are common in your  town then getting the attention of
city/town hall ought to be pretty damn easy, I've had to do so myself.  If
its just your neighborhood it still ought not be very hard.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
  I'd say your experience is anomalous.  I don't know which township you're
  in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local
  officials.

 Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a
 long and studied history of success.  Who do I vote for? The officials
 that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the
 problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate
 increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems?

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin


 --
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Tom Hill


On 21/07/14 18:19, Jay Ashworth wrote:

Well, if they are provisioned for it, and if they don't (continue to)
impose the silly you can't run a server on a consumer circuit
crap they traditionally have.


It might improve their ratios if they did relax that... Eventually.


I just have no faith that all the dominos are lined up in the proper
direction...


Indeed; quite hard to be trusting at this point.


Tom

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Lots of blame to go around.  Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
(Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply.  In
Verizon's case, 1.8:1.  I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
Netflix knows how much traffic it sends.  If its transit is doing
their due diligence, they'll also know.  It didn't come as a surprise
to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
into at least some eyeball provider peers.  Cogent is notoriously hard
nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
fight.  Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
contractual green.  Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
ask for free stuff.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
 wrote:
  I am equally certain that some there
  were some folks, perhaps lawyers, who said this gives us a better
  position to argue from if we need to against Netflix.

 wasn't this part of the verizon network specifically NOT the red part
 in the verizon blog?
 (so I'm unclear how this change is in any way related to
 verizon/netflix issues)

 I made the argument, so I'll clarify.

 One of the arguments which was put up for why this was Verizontal's problem
 was that they should have *understood* that if they deployed an eyeball
 network which was *by design* asymmetrical downhill, that that's how
 their peering would look too -- asymmetrical incoming; the thing they're
 complaining about now.

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
  and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
 
 Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've
 suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade
 and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about
 my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the
 service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing
 department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the
 lawyers.
 
 And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help
 folks in a truly remote location.

So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based 
on confusing anecdotes for data? :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Aaron

Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access 
to it's residents?



On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly 
subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection

Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)


On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:

My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

-Blake


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks

Hi Jay,

Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.

Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?


--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com

 Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
 (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
 anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
 Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
 L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
 Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
 their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise
 to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
 into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard
 nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
 fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
 almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
 number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
 contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
 ask for free stuff.

I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you
are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's
*fault*/responsibility, rather than merely being the other side of 
flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.

Did I misunderstand you?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based
 on confusing anecdotes for data? :-)

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing politics and opinions. Did you
have some actual data you wanted us to look at? ;-)

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 If your issues are common in your  town then getting the attention of
 city/town hall ought to be pretty damn easy, I've had to do so myself.  If
 its just your neighborhood it still ought not be very hard.

Hi Scott,

You're welcome to give it a try. I'll cheer you on and offer any data,
letters, etc. that I can. Sad to say, but folks in the DC area are
true masters of intransigence. We've elevated it to an art form.

That billing dispute with the gas company took 18 months to resolve,
and didn't get fixed until after it was referred to their lawyers.
Even then I strongly suspect the fact that I was offering to pay them
when the guy who opened the account and whose name was on the bill
died 25 years prior probably had more to do with it than any argument
about reasonableness.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Ask Skype just how easy it is to do that with a dual-stacked service.

Owen

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:29 , Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com wrote:

Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to
blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
- jra

On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com
wrote:

There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the
FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are
political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably
political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth
Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
647 1274

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Andrew Gallo



On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were 
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint 
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and 
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the 
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. 
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight 
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.


While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I 
would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be 
exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode 
fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, 
preferrably tens of thousands.


It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and 
in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different 
technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can 
provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run 
hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. 
Anything is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable 
in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation.


Agree 100%.  Layer-1 infrastructure is a high-cost, long term investment 
with little 'value-add'  You don't see too many companies clamoring to 
put in new water or sewer pipes.  Treat fiber the same way.


The money is in content, which is why we're seeing ISP and media 
consolidation.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
 On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:
 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained
 to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications
 infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory
 basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh
 the damage on the infrastructure side. Like public roads facilitate
 efficient transportation and freight despite the cost and potholes, though
 that's an imperfect simile.

 While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I would
 definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be exactly that,
 muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode fiber cabling,
 aggregating thousands of households per location, preferrably tens of
 thousands.

Howdy,

I hold out hope it could also be done with a local lit multipoint
service. Here's your RFC 6598 address, here's the RFC 6598 addresses
of these 20 service providers, pay whichever one you want for general
purpose Internet connectivity, video over IP or whatever the heck it
is they sell and they'll provide the VPN client you need.

But either way, constrain the locality to providing local point to
point and point to multipoint connectivity. Don't allow it to provide
general services over the link unless you intend to keep all
commercial service providers out.


 It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, and in
 these aggregation nodes people can compete with several different
 technologies, they can use PON, they can use active ethernet, they can
 provide corporate 10GE connections if they need to, they can run
 hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE for residential. Anything
 is possible and the infrastructure is likely to be as viable in 30 years as
 it is day 1 after installation.

You're not wrong. And a locality providing dark fiber as at least one
of the buyable services is doing things right.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks
 
 Hi Jay,
 
 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.

Actually, in all of the places that have Muni fiber, things seem to be much
better for consumers than where it does not exist. Of the people I've talked
to (admittedly not a statistically valid sample), I've heard no reports of slow
installations, problematic situations, or bad service anywhere near the levels
offered by the various commercial broadband providers.

 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers 
in any
but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them
parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for 
higher
layer services.

OTOH, if we prohibit layer one facilities based operators from being service
providers, you create an environment well suited to rich competition for the
higher layer services while providing an opportunity for higher-layer service
operators to increase accountability among the physical facilities operator.

I'm not saying we grant legal monopolies to layer one providers or mandate
that they be run by municipalities. I am saying that we should not prohibit
municipalities from operating fiber systems, but, instead, we should prohibit
anyone installing new facilities from also selling services over those 
facilities.
Instead, facilities operators should be required to lease those physical plant
elements to any service providers on an equal footing on a first-come-first
serve basis.

If a layer one provider does a bad enough job, the service providers can create
demand for an alternative layer one provider much more easily than consumers.

 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the

Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to 
provide
physical link, not higher layer services.

 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to be as well
maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in very wealthy
gated communities.

Owen

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

My municipality (Loma Linda, CA) doesn't offer anything free, but does
provide fiber connectivity (Layer 3) to residents in some portions of
the city.  There were plans at one point to make it available more
broadly, but nearly eight years later I still am not in an area which
has access nor do I think there has been great progress in the
build-out efforts for whatever reasons (costs, lack of demand, etc.).

Ray

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:26:54PM -0500, Aaron wrote:
 Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet
 access to it's residents?
 
 
 On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
 I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
 free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every
 layer 1 connection
 
 Matthew Kaufman
 
 (Sent from my iPhone)
 
 On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
 
 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
 
 -Blake
 
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
 to own fiber networks
 Hi Jay,
 
 Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
 are many things government does better than any private organization
 is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
 exorbitant price.
 
 Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
 built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
 residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
 taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
 access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
 Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.
 
 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.
 
 Regards,
 Bill Herrin

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Ryan Wilkins


On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote:

 Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to 
 it's residents?


Cleveland, OH Ward 13.
http://oldbrooklynconnected.com

Nearly every street in the ward has multiple wireless access points serving 
Internet access to the residents at 2.4 GHz.  5 GHz is used for backhaul.  
Ubiquity networks wireless gear is used with a smattering of Mikrotik routers 
throughout.
It’s not terribly reliable but then maybe that’s on purpose to discourage 
lawsuits.  If there is a problem with the system on a Friday at 5:30 PM, it’ll 
be down until the following Tuesday.  The bandwidth also isn’t anything to 
write home about, but for free (meaning I don’t directly send these folks a 
check every month) it’s not too bad.  I can get 6 Mbps down and 2-4 Mbps up, 
sometimes more up and down but that’s fairly rare..  I’ve used it for Netflix 
and it worked reasonably well.  HD content would stream but often would jump 
back to SD.  Rarely would it stop entirely.
I ended up having to setup an account with Time Warner for their Internet 
service because I work from home and the wireless interruptions were enough 
that it was causing problems.  ATT also serves the area but only with 1.5 Mbps 
DSL.  No other wired carriers serve the area aside from dialup.

Ryan Wilkins

RE: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Alex Rubenstein

What timing.

I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a problem.

Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed to 
this list. The copper is literally falling off the telephone poles, and in 
conversations with linemen, they are instructed to effectuate repairs in the 
cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In fact, in many cases, they offer to 
customers to replace their service with wireless rather than fix the wireline.

Further, 07874 happens to be a region that never got FIOS prior to 2010, and 
there are no plans for it to come in the near future. So, we can always get 1.5 
meg DSL which is as reliable, well, as reliable as it can be on a 75 year old 
copper plant.

So, our alternative is cable? Well, in 07874, we have a company called Service 
Electric Cable, and for $109/month, you get cable tv, 2/.256 mb/s (yes, 256 
kb/s upload) internet and phone. Up it to $173 month (!!!) and you get 35/3 
mb/s instead. Upload speed? Yes, really, 3 mb/s. Oh, and wait, it isn't 
unlimited; there is a bandwidth cap that if you exceed, they charge $1/GB.

So, if this is the case 50 miles from the largest city in the USA, I can't 
imagine what is happening elsewhere in more remote areas.

So, yes, I am a fan for Muni Fiber; really, I am a fan for any method possible 
for more competition to occur in the local markets. Perhaps, hopefully, we are 
on the cusp of another round of ISPs selling broadband to the local, secondary 
and tertiary market. I am certainly considering doing it in my local community.






 -Original Message-
 From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay Ashworth
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:21 AM
 To: NANOG
 Subject: Muni Fiber and Politics
 
 Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own
 fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and other cable
 companies/MSOs[1].
 
 Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010 press
 release[2].
 
 FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the FCC to
 preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.
 
 Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:
 
 http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-
 are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet
 
 [ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:
 
 http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-
 block-fcc-preemption/132468 ]
 
 While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are 
 political; this
 one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably political.
 My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 
 [1] http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-
 fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
 [2] https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-
 Expansion-is-Over-118949
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread goemon


On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big 
players have any intent of deploying anything


This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider 
was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it.


If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no 
service at all to this day.


-Dan

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


On Jul 21, 2014, at 13:04 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
 I'd say your experience is anomalous.  I don't know which township you're
 in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local
 officials.
 
 Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a
 long and studied history of success.  Who do I vote for? The officials
 that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the
 problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate
 increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems?

If you run, you can vote for yourself and try to push whatever you think is a 
more
effective solution. If the problems are really as bad as you describe, surely 
you
could get tremendous support from the other residents for your endeavor to 
resolve them.

Owen

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

Sounds like you chose a particularly bad municipality.

I live in PGE territory, so I can't directly comment on residential municipal 
power.

However, I can say that my friends who live in SVP territory all have better 
service
at a lower price than what I get from PGE. (SVP is the City of Santa Clara 
power
agency). Their service has proven both more reliable and more consistent in 
regards
to voltage, lack of transients, etc. (Yes, we've actually put measurement 
equipment in
and compared).

My water is municipal and while it doesn't taste great without filtration due 
to the
antiquity of the mostly iron pipes and the amount of rust that gets picked up 
from the
system along the way, it's quite safe to drink and has been very reliable. I've 
not had
any better experience from any of the private water companies I've ever dealt 
with.

My sewer has been trouble free and the storm drains in my neighborhood by and 
large
have worked without issue. On the few occasions where we've had minor storm 
drain
issues, it has been during very heavy rain periods and the city has still 
managed to resolve
the issues very promptly and without any significant hazard or collateral 
damage developing.

PGE has been relatively reliable with my gas connection, but I can point you to
some residents in San Mateo county who could tell a very different story about
their experience with PGE's gas transmission system. (And some who can no
longer tell any stories as a result of PGE's gas transmission system).

My garbage/recycling is provided by a third-party private contractor that has a 
monopoly
granted to them by the city. I am billed by the city. Their service has left 
much to be
desired, but when I have contacted the city about issues, the city employees 
have
been very prompt about addressing them and seem to do well taking the contractor
to task as needed. Frankly, I wish the city would just take over the actual 
operation
as I think they would do a better job than the contractor (Green Waste). At 
least the
new contractor is somewhat better than the previous one (BFI).

I'm in the city of San Jose.

We don't have municipal fiber to residential or business buildings, but the 
city does
have its own rather extensive fiber network which includes, among other things,
apparently every street-light in the city. (would be nice if they'd have 
included
nearby buildings in that build-out or at least the possibility of attaching 
them later
when they did that, but I'm sure some anti-government-competition weenies
shot that idea down early on).

I'm sorry your city is so bad at its jobs. Many cities are not. I wouldn't hold 
San Jose
up as a shining example of a great municipality by any measure, but overall, 
they
do seem to get the job done and are somewhat functional on average. I'd give 
them
a C overall as a grade.

I think they are about average as major municipalities go.

Owen

On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:50 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
 My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
 and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...
 
 Mine isn't. I lost power for a three days solid last year, I've
 suffered 3 sanitary sewer backflows into my basement the last decade
 and you should see the number of violations the EPA has on file about
 my drinking water system. Only the gas company has managed to keep the
 service on, at least until I had a problem with the way their billing
 department mishandled my bill. Didn't get solved until it went to the
 lawyers.
 
 And I'm in the burbs a half dozen miles from Washington DC. God help
 folks in a truly remote location.
 
 Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?
 
 It isn't.
 
 Regards,
 Bill Herrin
 
 
 
 -- 
 William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
 Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
 Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Aaron


Thank you.

Search gives me examples of small to medium municipal wireless 
deployments but what I'm particularly interested in is an example(s) of 
a municipal fiber build that was used to deliver free internet access to 
said municipality's residents.  The post I originally responded to would 
lead me to believe that such an entity exists and if so, information on 
it would be super timely to a project I'm working on.


Aaron


On 7/21/2014 3:47 PM, Ryan Wilkins wrote:

On Jul 21, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote:


Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to 
it's residents?


Cleveland, OH Ward 13.
http://oldbrooklynconnected.com

Nearly every street in the ward has multiple wireless access points serving 
Internet access to the residents at 2.4 GHz.  5 GHz is used for backhaul.  
Ubiquity networks wireless gear is used with a smattering of Mikrotik routers 
throughout.
It’s not terribly reliable but then maybe that’s on purpose to discourage 
lawsuits.  If there is a problem with the system on a Friday at 5:30 PM, it’ll 
be down until the following Tuesday.  The bandwidth also isn’t anything to 
write home about, but for free (meaning I don’t directly send these folks a 
check every month) it’s not too bad.  I can get 6 Mbps down and 2-4 Mbps up, 
sometimes more up and down but that’s fairly rare..  I’ve used it for Netflix 
and it worked reasonably well.  HD content would stream but often would jump 
back to SD.  Rarely would it stop entirely.
I ended up having to setup an account with Time Warner for their Internet service 
because I work from home and the wireless interruptions were enough that it was 
causing problems.  ATT also serves the area but only with 1.5 Mbps DSL.  No 
other wired carriers serve the area aside from dialup.

Ryan Wilkins




--

Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

You didn't misunderstand me.  But that's not the only point I was
making.  Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it
doesn't have interconnections with.  Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1
peering agreement.  Cogent sends more than that and as such is in
breach of contract.  It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept
penalties.  So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's
Cogent's.  They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix,
with the service they purchased.

Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the
internet's traffic.  That leads to special considerations for Netflix
as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts.  Anyone
promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com

 Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
 (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
 anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
 Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
 L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
 Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
 their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise
 to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
 into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard
 nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
 fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
 almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
 number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
 contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
 ask for free stuff.

 I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you
 are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's
 *fault*/responsibility, rather than merely being the other side of
 flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.

 Did I misunderstand you?

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
  I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to
  be as well
  maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in
  very wealthy
  gated communities.
 
 Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll
 Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition
 than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out at
 http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but they
 are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 miles
 of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen a
 municipality achieve for the same price.

Stop it, Bill.

Owen didn't say privately owned *toll road*; very wealthy gated 
communities are even still rarely large enough to need their own
turnpikes.

If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down for
you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish.

Stop trying to make the arguments fit the end-game, and have the same
conversation the rest of us are, ok?

(And the next assertion you shouldn't make is that I'm saying governments
are perfect, or even better than private corporations *IN GENERAL*; we're
talking about a very specific commons, with a very specific set of 
requirements that are not well served by proprietary profit-making 
corporations.)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

So you're actually saying that it's *Cogent's* fault for not taking
into account that Netflix was going to be horribly asymmetric, in taking
them on as a client?  I'm fine with that, but what's their solution?

- Original Message -
 From: Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com
 To: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
 Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
 Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 5:25:49 PM
 Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
 You didn't misunderstand me. But that's not the only point I was
 making. Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it
 doesn't have interconnections with. Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1
 peering agreement. Cogent sends more than that and as such is in
 breach of contract. It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept
 penalties. So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's
 Cogent's. They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix,
 with the service they purchased.

 Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the
 internet's traffic. That leads to special considerations for Netflix
 as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts. Anyone
 promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
  - Original Message -
  From: Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com

  Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
  (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
  anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
  Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
  L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering
  agreements.
  Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
  their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a
  surprise
  to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
  into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously
  hard
  nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
  fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers
  that
  almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
  number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into
  the
  contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone
  to
  ask for free stuff.

  I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if
  you
  are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow
  Netflix's
  *fault*/responsibility, rather than merely being the other side of
  flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.

  Did I misunderstand you?

  Cheers,
  -- jra
  --
  Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
  Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
  Ashworth  Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII
  St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com

 Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of
 subscribers in any
 but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_
 you let them
 parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive
 environment for higher layer services.

As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive
L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in
reducing barriers to entry.

But no sense in relitigating that here.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
  So, could you then, Bill, convince us that your opinion isn't based
  on confusing anecdotes for data? :-)
 
 I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing politics and opinions. Did you
 have some actual data you wanted us to look at? ;-)

No, but I wasn't asserting All government sucks. Ugh; you were.  

Did *you* have data to back up All, or not?  

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
.
 Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers 
 in any
 but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let 
 them
 parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for 
 higher
 layer services.

I take it that on principal you would have petitioned against the
proposed Google Fiber roll-out in the San Jose area and would
have spoken out against it at the public hearing on June 17th
in favor of an alternative municipal funded project if you were not
otherwise engaged (the synopsis indicates no public comments
from the floor from that meeting)?  You may have missed an
opportunity to be the one to stop Google Fiber in San Jose in
preference to muni fiber, although there is never just one meeting
for such large scale projects.  I am sure you will have other
chances to offer your opinion, and encourage the council to
just say no.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Kaufman

I'd rather ask Adobe, since their peer-to-peer transport (and layers
above) has been dual-stacked since it was first designed.

Matthew Kaufman

On 7/21/2014 1:24 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

Ask Skype just how easy it is to do that with a dual-stacked service.

Owen

On Jul 21, 2014, at 10:29 , Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com wrote:

Seems like as good at time as any for Netflix to go distributed peer to peer.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Is anyone else cynical enough to say FiOS going symmetrical is an attempt to
blunt the pro-NetFlix argument on that point?
- jra

On July 21, 2014 12:46:27 PM EDT, Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com
wrote:

There was a muni case in my neck of the woods a couple of years ago.
Comcast spent an order of magnitude more than the municipality but
still lost.

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/media-roundup-blackburn-amendment-lights-newswires

In other news, FIOS has gone symmetrical.

http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/07-21-fios-upload-speed-upgrade/

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities
to own fiber networks -- encouraged largely, I am told, by Verizon and
other cable companies/MSOs[1].

Verizon, of course, isn't doing any new FiOS deployments, per a 2010
press release[2].

FCC Chair Tom Wheeler has been making noises lately that he wants the
FCC
to preempt the field on this topic, making such deployments legal.

Congressional Republicans think that's a bad idea:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/20/5913363/house-republicans-and-obamas-fcc-are-at-war-over-city-owned-internet

[ and here's the backgrounder on the amendment:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/blackburn-bill-would-block-fcc-preemption/132468
]

While I generally try to avoid bringing up topics on NANOG that are
political;
this one seems to be directly in our wheelhouse, and unavoidably
political.
My apologies in advance; let's all try to be grownups, shall we?

Cheers,
-- jra

[1]
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hundreds-of-cities-are-wired-with-fiberbut-telecom-lobbying-keeps-it-unused
[2]
https://secure.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Again-Confirms-FiOS-Expansion-is-Over-118949
--
Jay R. Ashworth
Baylink
j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
RFC 2100
Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land
Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727
647 1274

--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Matthew Kaufman


Is that what I said?

Matthew Kaufman

On 7/21/2014 1:26 PM, Aaron wrote:
Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet 
access to it's residents?



On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in 
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 
1 connection


Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)


On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:

My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

-Blake

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us 
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com 
wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for 
municipalities

to own fiber networks

Hi Jay,

Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.

Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 No, but I wasn't asserting All government sucks. Ugh; you were.

All governments suck some of the time, and some
governments suck all of the time.  Your evaluation
as to the level of vacuum will depend on how often
your oxen pass the government goring centers
(part of the you can not please all of the people
all of the time theme).

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
  I will point out that in my experience, private roads do not tend to
  be as well
  maintained overall as public roads with some notable exceptions in
  very wealthy
  gated communities.

 Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll
 Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition
 than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out at
 http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but they
 are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157 miles
 of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen a
 municipality achieve for the same price.

 Stop it, Bill.

 Owen didn't say privately owned *toll road*; very wealthy gated
 communities are even still rarely large enough to need their own
 turnpikes.

 If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down for
 you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish.

(A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately
owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community.

(B) That was a private message to you and Owen. Is there a particular
reason you felt the need to add nanog back to the recipients list?

-Bill



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

  Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll
  Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition
  than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out
  at http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but
  they are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157
  miles of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen
  a municipality achieve for the same price.
 
  Stop it, Bill.
 
  Owen didn't say privately owned *toll road*; very wealthy gated
  communities are even still rarely large enough to need their own
  turnpikes.
 
  If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down
  for you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish.
 
 (A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately
 owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community.

That was one example of 4, the last.  The other appear to be toll roads,
though I don't live in the neighborhood.

 (B) That was a private message to you and Owen. Is there a particular
 reason you felt the need to add nanog back to the recipients list?

Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant.  Sorry.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Brian Artschwager

Maybe I am narrow minded in my reading of all of this information. But it
seems to me that Verizon customers want to use their service to the
internet(Verizon), and Verizon's connection to the internet(L3, cogent,
etc) is not a thick enough pipe.

This sounds like UPS telling you that the reason your next day package
hasn't arrived is because they refuse to buy an airplane and insist on
sending it by truck...


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
  From: Jason Iannone jason.iann...@gmail.com

  Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
  (Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
  anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
  Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
  L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
  Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
  their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise
  to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
  into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard
  nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
  fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
  almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
  number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
  contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
  ask for free stuff.

 I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you
 are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's
 *fault*/responsibility, rather than merely being the other side of
 flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.

 Did I misunderstand you?

 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
 j...@baylink.com
 Designer The Things I Think   RFC
 2100
 Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
 Rover DII
 St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647
 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Constantine A. Murenin

On 21 July 2014 13:56, Alex Rubenstein a...@corp.nac.net wrote:
 What timing.

 I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a 
 problem.

 Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are subscribed 
 to this list. The copper is literally falling off the telephone poles, and in 
 conversations with linemen, they are instructed to effectuate repairs in the 
 cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In fact, in many cases, they offer to 
 customers to replace their service with wireless rather than fix the wireline.

 Further, 07874 happens to be a region that never got FIOS prior to 2010, and 
 there are no plans for it to come in the near future. So, we can always get 
 1.5 meg DSL which is as reliable, well, as reliable as it can be on a 75 year 
 old copper plant.

 So, our alternative is cable? Well, in 07874, we have a company called 
 Service Electric Cable, and for $109/month, you get cable tv, 2/.256 mb/s 
 (yes, 256 kb/s upload) internet and phone. Up it to $173 month (!!!) and you 
 get 35/3 mb/s instead. Upload speed? Yes, really, 3 mb/s. Oh, and wait, it 
 isn't unlimited; there is a bandwidth cap that if you exceed, they charge 
 $1/GB.

 So, if this is the case 50 miles from the largest city in the USA, I can't 
 imagine what is happening elsewhere in more remote areas.

 So, yes, I am a fan for Muni Fiber; really, I am a fan for any method 
 possible for more competition to occur in the local markets. Perhaps, 
 hopefully, we are on the cusp of another round of ISPs selling broadband to 
 the local, secondary and tertiary market. I am certainly considering doing it 
 in my local community.

I've lived in midtown San Jose, CA 95126 circa 2010/2012, in a
2010-completed condo-style 5-story 243-unit apartment complex, which
had ATT FTTU, with Alcatel HONT-C (4 POTS, 1 Ethernet; 155.52 Mbps
upstream and 622.08 Mbps downstream, according to Alcatel; shared
with at most 32 users).

  http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2013-January/055282.html

I've had the fibre terminated in my bedroom closet with ONT.  At that
time, ATT would advertise 24/3 U-verse, since the day I've signed up
in mid-2010.  Yet they repeatedly (and on distinct occasions, well
into 2012) have failed and/or refused to provision my line to anything
above 18/1.5.  So, I did have under 3ms pings to some local CDNs, but
only 1.5Mbps of upstream, on a line that could easily handle 100Mbps.
Apparently, they've reserved 24/3 for single-pair copper customers,
with bonded pair and FTTU being artificially limited to 18/1.5.

Keep in mind -- that's a greenfield development in San Jose, CA -- the
biggest city in NorCal, and 10th biggest city in the US.

Strangely enough, it seems like if you actually want faster internet,
you have to move away from the big metro areas.  Kansas City, MO/KS,
Chattanooga, TN, Burlington, VT, Wilson, NC, Lafayette, LA, all have
much faster internet than most of the SF Bay Area.  I've actually even
started making a list at http://bmap.su/, together with the pricing;
it has all the links, and I haven't updated the prices in a while; if
you visit the providers, you can see how the prices for 100/100 are
now the same as they were for 40/40 a year ago, and 1000/1000 is the
same price as 80/80 was; and you can basically get 1000/1000 for
between 70 and 150 USD from the vast majority of the providers on the
list now.  Whereas att U-verse is still doing the same single-digit
Mbps on the upload side, even if they already have the technology in
place for doing 100Mbps.

C.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Gary Buhrmaster

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant.  Sorry.


Zimbra has had open follow the damn RFC's
tickets out there for a number of years.  Perhaps
it is past time to migrate away (fool me once,
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me for three consecutive version upgrades)

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

- Original Message -
 From: Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
 wrote:
 
  Cause my mailer isn't RFC 2919 compliant. Sorry.
 
 Zimbra has had open follow the damn RFC's
 tickets out there for a number of years. 

I know.

I wrote the vast majority of them, when I installed 5.x
in 2009.

 Perhaps
 it is past time to migrate away (fool me once,
 shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
 Fool me for three consecutive version upgrades)

The machine my personal Z6 server is on, since I left that job,
is 64 bit, but I only had 32 bit Centos5 laying around to install it
with at that time, and to upgrade Zimbra I now *have to* upgrade the
OS as well, which boosts the tuit requirements enough notches that I
just haven't done it yet.  It's about to be replaced by something 
much newer and faster, which will get Z8... and then I'll retarget all
the tickets which they likely *still* haven't fixed.  :-}

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Chris Boyd


On Jul 21, 2014, at 1:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:

 The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
 constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
 communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
 non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
 Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
 despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

I was planning on staying out of this debate, but.

I was involved in an effort a few years back to legalize municiple fiber 
buildouts in Texas for a few reasons:
Lack of fiber penetration in smaller cities where pent up demand was 
not being met.
Lack of competition in high speed data services in all but a few 
markets in the state.
This being the heady days of WiFi, allow cities who chose to build out 
public access to do so without interference from any incumbent.
And locally, allow the cities that already had fiber built out to use 
that fiber to earn additional revenue by leasing capacity to any carrier who 
wanted it.

To put it mildly, the incumbents went off.  Massive lobbying efforts.  
Astroturfing.  End of the telecom world rhetoric.  During the regular session, 
using a pro market argument that allowing open access to a city built fiber 
network would improve the comepetive landscape, we fought the anti-muni bill to 
a draw in the regular session.  It was, of course, passed in a dead-of-night 
action in a follow-on special session.  Cities were pretty well blocked from 
leasing fiber to others.

Now almost 10 years later, I'm finally seeing stirring of real competition on 
the utility poles in my neighborhood.  ATT is hanging new fiber and 
advertisting new high speed service on uVerse, TWC has increased their service 
levels without increasing prices.  The change? Google Fiber.

--Chris

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


On Jul 21, 2014, at 14:36 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

 - Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 
 Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of
 subscribers in any
 but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_
 you let them
 parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive
 environment for higher layer services.
 
 As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive
 L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in
 reducing barriers to entry.
 
 But no sense in relitigating that here.

IIRC, we agreed to disagree at the end of that thread.

Owen

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


On Jul 21, 2014, at 14:41 , Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
 .
 Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of 
 subscribers in any
 but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let 
 them
 parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for 
 higher
 layer services.
 
 I take it that on principal you would have petitioned against the
 proposed Google Fiber roll-out in the San Jose area and would
 have spoken out against it at the public hearing on June 17th
 in favor of an alternative municipal funded project if you were not
 otherwise engaged (the synopsis indicates no public comments
 from the floor from that meeting)?  You may have missed an
 opportunity to be the one to stop Google Fiber in San Jose in
 preference to muni fiber, although there is never just one meeting
 for such large scale projects.  I am sure you will have other
 chances to offer your opinion, and encourage the council to
 just say no.

Nope... I would strongly support it.

Why?

Because until we have regulation that does what I am proposing, we have 
ridiculous monopolies with all kinds of negative consumer impact. While Google 
as a new monopoly wouldn't be the ideal competitive environment, it would, at 
least, be better than what we have today.

While I believe, on principle that we need to move forward towards what I 
described above, I also recognize the reality on the ground and the need not to 
cut off one's nose to spite one's face.

Owen

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us

 On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:

  Ironically, I've had the opposite experience. The nearby Dulles Toll
  Road, Greenway and Beltway HOT lanes are all in much better condition
  than all but a few of the rest of the local roads. My buddies out
  at http://hoveroad.com/ don't keep the roads in as good shape, but
  they are in excellent repair for an organization that maintains 157
  miles of roads on a $1M annual budget. Vastly better than what I've seen
  a municipality achieve for the same price.
 
  Stop it, Bill.
 
  Owen didn't say privately owned *toll road*; very wealthy gated
  communities are even still rarely large enough to need their own
  turnpikes.
 
  If you keep setting up straw men, we'll be happy to knock them down
  for you, but you'll end up looking a little foolish.

 (A) The referenced example, the HOVE RMC, is 157 miles of privately
 owned road which is neither a toll road nor a gated community.

 That was one example of 4, the last.  The other appear to be toll roads,
 though I don't live in the neighborhood.

Indeed. One is a purely private toll road, one is a public-private
partnership toll road and one is owned and operated by a
quasi-governmental agency. Why consider just one class of private
roads when you can examine examples of four?

VDOT actually does a halfway decent job of maintaining local public
roads but they spend a vast fortune on it and they're decades (with an
s) behind expanding those roads to meet the demand. Compared to
Verizon/Netflix they're about the same: works OK a good part of the
day but comes to a screeching halt during the quarter of the day that
are prime hours. Compare that to Maryland which enjoys reducing lanes
for construction work on already congested roads for months at a time
and DC itself which spends a cast fortune on roads which are usually
in worse condition *after* the maintenance. Soon the roads there will
have more metal plate surface area than asphalt. DC roads are like a
network with permanent 10% packet loss and your only alternative is
geo satellite.

But HOVE is a nice example. As a land owner and therefore shareholder
in the RMC, I pay my fees every year. I vote directly on those fees
too, so if I'm not happy I have some real control.

As a shareholder of Verizon I have no control. I truly earnestly wish
my stock would go to zero. Rather, I wish for Verizon to encounter
trouble that would cause my stock to drop to zero. But as long as that
isn't happening I may as well collect the dividend. If the government
ran it, I couldn't even do that.

What were we talking about? I forget.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Reminders and Updates

2014-07-21 Thread Betty Burke be...@nanog.org

Colleagues:

A few reminders regarding NANOG 61- Bellevue, ARIN+NANOG on The Road -
Madison, NANOG 62 - Baltimore, Baltimore Education Classes, 2014 Elections,
and a NANOG Portal Update follow;

NANOG 61 Presentations https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/agenda
and Meeting
Survey Results https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/surveys are posted.

NANOG on the Road will be traveling to Madison, WS
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/road4/home on September 9, 2014. The
pre-agenda is expected very shortly. Please note, registration is
required, however there is no fee to attend.

NANOG 62 CFP https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/callforpresentations,
Registration https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/registration, and Hotel
Reservations https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog62/hotelinformation are
open. As the deadline is fast approaching, please do consider submitting a
presentation. The NANOG Registration Fee will increase on September 15,
2014. We expect strong attendance, thus be sure to make your room
reservation soon. Do you know someone who might need a bit of assistance
attending NANOG 62, please send along information regarding our NANOG
Fellowship https://www.nanog.org/resources/fellowships program.

Two Education Classes, Routing Fundamentals
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/baltimore_education_classes/routing_fundamentals
and IPv6 Routing Fundamentals
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/baltimore_education_classes/ipv6_routing_fundamentals
will be offered on Sunday, October 5, 2015 in Baltimore. These classes
offer This is a great opportunity for budding engineers or graduate
students, as well as current Internet technicians, to learn best practices,
refresh on routing skills.

2014 Elections are fast approaching. The Election announcement will be
sent shortly. So as to participate in NANOG leadership discussions, be
sure to renew and/or join NANOG https://www.nanog.org/membership/join now.

Lastly, as you prepare to Register for NANOG 62, or renew your NANOG
membership, you will see a new NANOG Portal (ARO) interface with more icons
and simpler navigation paths to help you get where you want to go.

Should you decide you like the look/feel of the old interface, you can
switch back by following the steps:

- Log onto your ARO account at https://www.nanog.org/login and enter
your username and password.
- Click on My ARO at the top left next to the NANOG logo; then click on
My Account.
- Under Account Preferences on the right side, select NO at Show New
Interface.

We hope you find these reminders and information helpful. Should you have
any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact
nanog-supp...@nanog.org.

Sincerely,
Betty

--
Betty Burke
NANOG Executive Director
48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117
Fremont, CA 94538
Tel: +1 510 492 4030
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Rich Kulawiec

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:41PM +, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
I live in 07874. Out here, only 50 miles from New York City, we have a
problem.

You also have another problem, which I'll get to in a moment.

Verizon's network in this area is older than most people who are
subscribed to this list. The copper is literally falling off the
telephone poles, and in conversations with linemen, they are instructed
to effectuate repairs in the cheapest manner possible (band-aid). In
fact, in many cases, they offer to customers to replace their service
with wireless rather than fix the wireline.

That's the problem. Copper plant is clearly not the optimal solution
for data communication, but when you really NEED a voice call to go
through -- say, when a major hurricane moves up the coast, taking out
all kinds of infrastructure as it goes -- it gives you the best chance.
And if that phone call's content is something like the water is rising,
we need to be evac'd NOW, then you'd probably want that best chance.

Well, if it's as well-maintained as it once was. Say what you want
about the old Ma Bell, but they overengineered the hell out of everything
from CO's to handsets, and that effort saved lives.

Now? Not so much:

Verizon Tells Some Sandy Victims They'll Never Get DSL Back As Company
Continues Push Toward Killing Off Copper

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tells-Some-Sandy-Victims-Theyll-Never-Get-DSL-Back-123612

Verizon Tells More Sandy Victims They'll Never See DSL Repaired
Verizon Uses Storm Cover as Opportunity to Hang Up on Users
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/124166

Sandy Victims Continue to Complain Verizon Hung Up on Them
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/126235

Verizon on Killing DSL: But..But..Sandy Was SAD!
Company Dodges Concerns About Failure in Sandy Regions
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/124486

Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its
New York Copper Lines

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13575325508/public-service-commission-orders-verizon-to-cough-up-cost-data-its-new-york-copper-lines.shtml

Verizon Responds To Freedom Of Information Request With Hundred Of
Fully Redacted Pages

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131030/16250525075/verizon-responds-to-freedom-information-request-with-hundred-fully-redacted-pages.shtml

---rsk

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


goe...@anime.net wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of 
the big players have any intent of deploying anything


This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no 
provider was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it.


If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no 
service at all to this day.




Is that Ashland, Oregon?  I did some consulting on that project. The way 
it started was:

- They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building
- US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point,
- the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility what would 
it cost to run some fiber
- after some head scratching and some research, it came down to 
$100,000, one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had 
the poles, bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live 
electric wires who were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit)

- after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network

The cool thing about the project:
- Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they 
eat up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that 
segment


Cheers,

Miles

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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in 
limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to 
mind).  The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city 
funded, or donated.  The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been 
public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and 
such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling 
expanded service.  I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service 
beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service.


When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've 
generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for 
revenue to pay of the financing.  Lower cost than commercial services 
because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on 
a cost-recovery basis.


Miles Fidelman

Aaron wrote:
Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet 
access to it's residents?



On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in 
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 
1 connection


Matthew Kaufman

(Sent from my iPhone)


On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:

My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?

-Blake

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us 
wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com 
wrote:
Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for 
municipalities

to own fiber networks

Hi Jay,

Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There
are many things government does better than any private organization
is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an
exorbitant price.

Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once
built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so
residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via
taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network
access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in
Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty.

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side.
Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight
despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?





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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:

I'd say your experience is anomalous.  I don't know which township you're
in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local
officials.

Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a
long and studied history of success.  Who do I vote for? The officials
that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the
problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate
increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems?


So where is it that you live Bill?  I sure want to avoid moving there.

As an aside, I used to do policy and consulting work for communities 
that were looking at telecom. builds - mostly for muni electrics. In 
general, I found the folks I worked for to be very competent, and 
focused on public service.  Yes, there are incompetent, and corrupt, 
municipal utilities - but by and large they don't seem to be the ones 
trying to go into the telecom arena.  It's more the folks in communities 
that have muni electric utilities because, 100 years ago, the big boys 
weren't interested in their market - so, god damn it, they went out and 
built themselves their own electric plant (also why there are lots of 
coops out there, and lots of independent telcos in Iowa).  Today, those 
same folks are saying - if Verizon doesn't want to build it, screw it, 
we'll do it ourselves.  Also, the incompetent and the corrupt, generally 
aren't interested in the political and legal battles they'd have to go 
through to get a project off the ground.


Cheers,

Miles Fidelman

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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


Andrew Gallo wrote:


On 7/21/2014 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, William Herrin wrote:

The only exception I see to this would be if localities were 
constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint 
communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable 
and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on 
the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure 
side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and 
freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect 
simile.


While I might not agree with the parts of your email you cut out, I 
would definitely like to chime in on this part. Muni fiber should be 
exactly that, muni *fiber*. Point to point fiber optic single mode 
fiber cabling, aggregating thousands of households per location, 
preferrably tens of thousands.


It's hard to go wrong in this area, it either works or it doesn't, 
and in these aggregation nodes people can compete with several 
different technologies, they can use PON, they can use active 
ethernet, they can provide corporate 10GE connections if they need 
to, they can run hybrid/fiber coax, they can run point-to-point 1GE 
for residential. Anything is possible and the infrastructure is 
likely to be as viable in 30 years as it is day 1 after installation.


Agree 100%.  Layer-1 infrastructure is a high-cost, long term 
investment with little 'value-add'  You don't see too many companies 
clamoring to put in new water or sewer pipes.  Treat fiber the same way.


The money is in content, which is why we're seeing ISP and media 
consolidation.


One could argue that conduit is probably enough - it's digging up the 
streets that's the real expense (different story if everything is on 
poles, of course).


Personally, I generally argue that there are tremendous efficiencies if 
you provision at layer-2 -- how many college campuses or business parks 
that run redundant wires through the walls?


My favorite model is Grant County, WA - where the public utility 
district strung fiber everywhere.  They light the fiber at layer 2, but 
they only sell wholesale virtual nets.  They've got lots of competitive 
telephone, internet, and video providers riding the net.  Seems to work 
for them.  I believe they provisioned GigE 10 years ago.  (Note that 
these guys are serious players - they were running a network of 
hyrdo-electric dams, and power distribution, long before they got into 
telecom.  Now that's REAL operations. :-)


Miles Fidelman



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

Replacing Copper With Fiber, er, FiOS (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

- Original Message -
 From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org

 That's the problem. Copper plant is clearly not the optimal solution
 for data communication, but when you really NEED a voice call to go
 through -- say, when a major hurricane moves up the coast, taking out
 all kinds of infrastructure as it goes -- it gives you the best chance.
 And if that phone call's content is something like the water is rising,
 we need to be evac'd NOW, then you'd probably want that best chance.
 
 Well, if it's as well-maintained as it once was. Say what you want
 about the old Ma Bell, but they overengineered the hell out of
 everything from CO's to handsets, and that effort saved lives.

I have seen footage of a 308 rifle bullet going through the network of a
500 phone... which continued working.

 Verizon Tells Some Sandy Victims They'll Never Get DSL Back As Company
 Continues Push Toward Killing Off Copper
 http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Tells-Some-Sandy-Victims-Theyll-Never-Get-DSL-Back-123612

 Public Service Commission Orders Verizon To Cough Up Cost Data On Its
 New York Copper Lines
 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131209/13575325508/public-service-commission-orders-verizon-to-cough-up-cost-data-its-new-york-copper-lines.shtml
 
 Verizon Responds To Freedom Of Information Request With Hundred Of
 Fully Redacted Pages
 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131030/16250525075/verizon-responds-to-freedom-information-request-with-hundred-fully-redacted-pages.shtml

There's a messier problem here, that I don't see much coverage of (so 
perhaps I heard it wrong):

Is not Verizon trying to replace *regulated* ILEC copper with 
*unregulated* FiOS VoF?

Isn't that pulling a pretty fast one?

This came up in the when we install FiOS, we're physically removing
all your copper demarcs (even if they have active calls on them) thing,
too, but still not much outrage.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth  Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

2014-07-21 Thread Matt Palmer

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
 On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
 On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
 But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
 there is no such thing as THE Internet.
 
 The Internet as the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
 transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an
 IP packet from'
 
 -- Seth Breidbart.
 
 I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence
 classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet
 from’ is not an equivalence relation.  I will use ~ as the relation and
 say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
 
 In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached
 by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall
 or an asymmetric routing fault.  It’s also true that transitivity does
 not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
 
 Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’
 partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
 
 Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest
 subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations
 hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
 
 That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.

 When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`

We probably shouldn't talk about it in public.

- Matt
A discrete math course, on the other hand...

Re: Replacing Copper With Fiber, er, FiOS (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)

2014-07-21 Thread Mike.



On 7/21/2014 at 9:53 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:

|- Original Message -
|There's a messier problem here, that I don't see much coverage of (so 
|perhaps I heard it wrong):
|
|Is not Verizon trying to replace *regulated* ILEC copper with 
|*unregulated* FiOS VoF?
|

From what I've read in the local Hurricane Sandy coverage (I'm in the NYC
area), I'd have to say 'yes' to that.



|Isn't that pulling a pretty fast one?

You sound surprised.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Jima


On 2014-07-21 16:20, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:

Strangely enough, it seems like if you actually want faster internet,
you have to move away from the big metro areas.  Kansas City, MO/KS,
Chattanooga, TN, Burlington, VT, Wilson, NC, Lafayette, LA, all have
much faster internet than most of the SF Bay Area.


 Don't forget the various SLC suburbs with their sub-$100 1000/1000 
FTTH service, and choice of eight layer-3 providers.  (Sorry.)


 Jima

Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2

I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in
more shortly.

We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- 
100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits.
The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as
well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line.

Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've
tested.

Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2
side is 54.197.239.228.  I'm not sure in which availability zone the
latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly.

MTR traceroute details are as follows:

Host   Loss%   Snt Drop   Avg  Best 
 Wrst StDev
1. 198.102.62.253   0.0%   5260   0.2   0.2 
  0.5   0.0
2. 152.179.250.141  0.0%   5260  14.1   7.0 
 19.4   3.6
3. 140.222.225.135 37.5%   526  197   7.7   6.8 
 35.8   1.9
4. 129.250.8.85 0.0%   5260   8.1   7.4 
 11.7   0.3
5. 129.250.2.229   10.3%   525   54  11.4   7.1 
 85.7   9.6
6. 129.250.2.169   41.5%   525  218  63.0  45.5 
130.7  10.3
7. 129.250.2.1540.2%   5251  59.9  44.5 
 69.0   4.0
8. ???
9. 54.240.229.967.8%   525   41  76.6  71.3 
119.9   8.6
54.240.229.104
54.240.229.106
10. 54.240.229.2 6.9%   525   36  74.7  
71.6 109.1   4.9
54.240.229.4
54.240.229.20
54.240.229.8
54.240.229.14
54.240.228.254
54.240.229.16
54.240.229.10
11. 54.240.229.174   5.5%   525   29  76.0  
71.7 109.0   7.3
54.240.229.162
54.240.229.160
54.240.229.170
54.240.229.172
54.240.229.168
54.240.229.164
12. 54.240.228.167  94.5%   525  495  76.4  
71.7 126.0  11.6
54.240.228.169
54.240.228.165
54.240.228.163
13. 72.21.220.1085.1%   525   27  75.2  
71.3 112.6   6.8
205.251.244.12
72.21.220.8
205.251.244.64
72.21.220.96
205.251.244.8
72.21.220.6
205.251.244.4
14. 72.21.220.45 9.0%   525   47  74.0  
71.6 199.5   8.5
72.21.220.149
72.21.220.29
72.21.220.125
72.21.220.37
72.21.220.61
72.21.220.2
72.21.220.69
15. 72.21.222.3310.5%   525   55  73.4  
71.5  87.1   1.5
205.251.245.65
72.21.222.149
72.21.222.35
72.21.220.29
72.21.222.131
72.21.222.147
72.21.220.37
16. 205.251.245.65  93.9%   525  492  73.1  
72.2  76.2   1.2
72.21.222.35
72.21.222.131
17. ???
18. ???
19. 216.182.224.79  13.5%   524   71  77.9  
72.4 101.2   5.4
216.182.224.81
216.182.224.95
216.182.224.77
20. 216.182.224.81  94.1%   524  492  77.9  
72.8  93.0   6.3
216.182.224.95
216.182.224.77
21. ???

The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon
Business FIOS line as well.

Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but
hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in.  Feel free to
reply off list.

Thanks,
Ray

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2

2014-07-21 Thread Roland Dobbins


On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

 We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds --  100KB/sec) to 
 certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits.

Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a difference?

--
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

   Equo ne credite, Teucri.

  -- Laocoön

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 7/21/2014 2:08 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:

My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on
and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc...

Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility?


Almost forces a what planet question.

Our power comes, some times, from Omaha Public Power District (not a 
municipal entity).  Cutting the necessary slack for the storms we have 
here, there are still way too many hits, blinks, and occasional 
hours-long outages that are never explained.


When I was a manager in a data Center in San Jose, California we had to 
install a 250KVA UPS plant and run the 1100/80 on rotating machines in 
order to survive the incessant hits, dips, drops, and outages.


Our water here is from a non-municipal Metropolitan Utilities District 
(who also does natural gas which we don't have).  And it is reliable and 
safe (if drinking water strongly laced with chlorine products can be 
said to be safe).


Where we are, the sewer system (a Municipal Utility!) seems to work, but 
in parts of Omaha if there is any rain to speak of peoples basements 
fill with sewage.


Several tax-increases and bond sales have been made to fix that, but it 
appears that the upscale parts of town gets new sidewalks.


Telephone, TV and Internet Service Provision is all Cox Cable (not a 
Municipal Utility) and it all pretty much works as long as OPPD hasn't 
gone to lunch.


So I don't think it matters much what kind of an operation it is--it 
matters what kinds of things are demanded-of and provided-for (funded) 
by the customers and the owners.


--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Larry Sheldon


On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in
free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer
1 connection


I don't think municipality is particularly relevant.  What is relevant 
is offering unfunded, un-understood, freebies.

--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:41:25AM +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote:
 
 On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:
 
  We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- 
  100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted
  circuits.
 
 Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a
 difference?

Not in a position to easily test that tonight (PDT) but will do so
tomorrow.

Ray

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2

2014-07-21 Thread Tim Heckman

I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's
Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network
based on changes in latency in a simple trace route.

I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr
doesn't support.

Cheers!
-Tim

On Jul 21, 2014 8:44 PM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:


 On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

  We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- 
100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits.

 Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a
difference?

 --
 Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com

Equo ne credite, Teucri.

   -- Laocoön

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2

2014-07-21 Thread Tim Heckman

Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies.

Here it is in full:



I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's
Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network
based on changes in latency in a simple trace route.

I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr
doesn't support.

Cheers!
-Tim
On Jul 21, 2014 8:34 PM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote:

 I'm short some important details on this one, but hopefully can fill in
 more shortly.

 We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- 
 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits.
 The issue is reproducible on both our production Gigabit circuit as
 well as a consumer grade Verizion FIOS line.

 Speeds are normal (10MB/sec plus) via non-Verizon circuits we've
 tested.

 Source IP's are in the 198.102.62.0/24 range and destination on the EC2
 side is 54.197.239.228.  I'm not sure in which availability zone the
 latter IP sits, but hope to find out shortly.

 MTR traceroute details are as follows:

 Host   Loss%   Snt Drop   Avg
  Best  Wrst StDev
 1. 198.102.62.253   0.0%   5260   0.2
   0.2   0.5   0.0
 2. 152.179.250.141  0.0%   5260  14.1
   7.0  19.4   3.6
 3. 140.222.225.135 37.5%   526  197   7.7
   6.8  35.8   1.9
 4. 129.250.8.85 0.0%   5260   8.1
   7.4  11.7   0.3
 5. 129.250.2.229   10.3%   525   54  11.4
   7.1  85.7   9.6
 6. 129.250.2.169   41.5%   525  218  63.0
  45.5 130.7  10.3
 7. 129.250.2.1540.2%   5251  59.9
  44.5  69.0   4.0
 8. ???
 9. 54.240.229.967.8%   525   41  76.6
  71.3 119.9   8.6
 54.240.229.104
 54.240.229.106
 10. 54.240.229.2 6.9%   525   36  74.7
  71.6 109.1   4.9
 54.240.229.4
 54.240.229.20
 54.240.229.8
 54.240.229.14
 54.240.228.254
 54.240.229.16
 54.240.229.10
 11. 54.240.229.174   5.5%   525   29  76.0
  71.7 109.0   7.3
 54.240.229.162
 54.240.229.160
 54.240.229.170
 54.240.229.172
 54.240.229.168
 54.240.229.164
 12. 54.240.228.167  94.5%   525  495  76.4
  71.7 126.0  11.6
 54.240.228.169
 54.240.228.165
 54.240.228.163
 13. 72.21.220.1085.1%   525   27  75.2
  71.3 112.6   6.8
 205.251.244.12
 72.21.220.8
 205.251.244.64
 72.21.220.96
 205.251.244.8
 72.21.220.6
 205.251.244.4
 14. 72.21.220.45 9.0%   525   47  74.0
  71.6 199.5   8.5
 72.21.220.149
 72.21.220.29
 72.21.220.125
 72.21.220.37
 72.21.220.61
 72.21.220.2
 72.21.220.69
 15. 72.21.222.3310.5%   525   55  73.4
  71.5  87.1   1.5
 205.251.245.65
 72.21.222.149
 72.21.222.35
 72.21.220.29
 72.21.222.131
 72.21.222.147
 72.21.220.37
 16. 205.251.245.65  93.9%   525  492  73.1
  72.2  76.2   1.2
 72.21.222.35
 72.21.222.131
 17. ???
 18. ???
 19. 216.182.224.79  13.5%   524   71  77.9
  72.4 101.2   5.4
 216.182.224.81
 216.182.224.95
 216.182.224.77
 20. 216.182.224.81  94.1%   524  492  77.9
  72.8  93.0   6.3
 216.182.224.95
 216.182.224.77
 21. ???

 The 140.222.225.135 shows up in the traceroutes via our Verizon
 Business FIOS line as well.

 Will be opening a ticket with both Verizon and AWS to assist, but
 hoping someone out there can take a look or chime in.  Feel free to
 reply off list.

 Thanks,
 Ray

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:

 goe...@anime.net wrote:
 On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:
 - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big 
 players have any intent of deploying anything
 
 This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider 
 was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it.
 
 If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no 
 service at all to this day.
 
 
 Is that Ashland, Oregon?  I did some consulting on that project. The way it 
 started was:
 - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building
 - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point,
 - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility what would it 
 cost to run some fiber
 - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, one 
 time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, bucket 
 trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who were 
 sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit)
 - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network
 
 The cool thing about the project:
 - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat 
 up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment

No to mention a wonderful Shakespeare festival, a number of very nice 
restaurants with good food and a pretty neat downtown to explore.

Need to get back up there... It's been a few years, but it's a lovely place to 
visit.

Owen

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics


Owen DeLong wrote:

On Jul 21, 2014, at 18:25 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:


goe...@anime.net wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:

- the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the big 
players have any intent of deploying anything

This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider was 
willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it.

If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no service 
at all to this day.


Is that Ashland, Oregon?  I did some consulting on that project. The way it 
started was:
- They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building
- US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point,
- the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility what would it cost to 
run some fiber
- after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000, one 
time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles, bucket 
trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who were 
sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit)
- after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network

The cool thing about the project:
- Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat up 
tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment

No to mention a wonderful Shakespeare festival, a number of very nice 
restaurants with good food and a pretty neat downtown to explore.


And a wonderful park designed by Olmsted!

Need to get back up there... It's been a few years, but it's a lovely place to 
visit.




Likewise!

Cheers,

Miles


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

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread John Osmon

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 01:34:58PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
 
 On Jul 21, 2014, at 11:38 , William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
 
  On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
 
  The only exception I see to this would be if localities were
  constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint
  communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and
  non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the
 
 Yes... This is absolutely the right answer, but they should only be able to 
 provide
 physical link, not higher layer services.

I try to point people to the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho at this point in
the conversation.  They supply dark fiber to commercial entities.

I inherited a network built on it during an acquisition a number of
years ago.  The city was much more responsive than any telco provider.
Pricing was well within reach of smaller providers.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread Constantine A. Murenin

On 21 July 2014 18:25, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
 goe...@anime.net wrote:

 On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Miles Fidelman wrote:

 - the anti-muni laws hurt small localities the most, where none of the
 big players have any intent of deploying anything


 This is exacatly why ashland fiber network came to be. Because no provider
 was willing to step up and provide service. So the city did it.

 If there were laws against it there, then ashland would still have no
 service at all to this day.


 Is that Ashland, Oregon?  I did some consulting on that project. The way it
 started was:
 - They needed to run a pair of fibers from City Hall to an out-building
 - US West (I think) quoted $5k/month/fiber, at which point,
 - the Mayor asked the director of the muni electric utility what would it
 cost to run some fiber
 - after some head scratching and some research, it came down to $100,000,
 one time - mostly for the tooling and some training (they had the poles,
 bucket trucks, linesman who were rated to work near live electric wires who
 were sitting around waiting for the next storm to hit)
 - after that, it was a no-brainer to start expanding the network

 The cool thing about the project:
 - Ashland has a bunch of places that do Hollywood post-production - they eat
 up tons of bandwidth shipping stuff around - really great for that segment

 Cheers,

 Miles

Cool story, however,

  http://www.ashlandfiber.net/productcenter.aspx#residential

... is nothing to brag home about.  5Mbps uploads max?  Meh, I get
more with mobile phone, plus my data is actually unlimited.

C.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

2014-07-21 Thread John Osmon

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 05:36:13PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
 As I noted in a long thread last year, I think that providing noncompetitive
 L2 aggregation as well -- on the same type of terms -- is productive in
 reducing barriers to entry.

Qwest had a great DSL product that did just this.  They weren't entirely
noncompetitive about it, but there were lots of ISPs in rural parts of
the West that sold L3 access over it.  (One smart ISP upstart in Wyoming
even started tying together inter-LATA regions of DSL and built up a
hefty business that has always impressed me.)

When the second largest ILEC in New Mexico was contemplating rolling out
DSL, they would hold town meetings and let residents know that they'd
put in DSLAMS if they could get a minimum of 75 orders.  The owner of
the ISP I worked for went to each meeting and offered to pay for the 75
ports until the ILEC had enough orders.

We never had to pay.  Their L2 with our L3 was a winner.  And we weren't
the only ISP that benefited from the services.

The nail in the coffin for most of the rural ISPs I worked with was when
the ILECs decided they weren't content with the revenues from the L2
network.  They started charging less for L2+L3 services than L2 services
at wholesale rates.  You can't compete with that.

Dial-up sucked from a bandwidth perspective, but it sure was cool that
you could change your L3 provider by putting a new phone number into the
modem config.  Where the barriers to entry are low, it's a lot easier to
vote with your pocketbook.

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2