Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Now that's more than a little disingenuous. Until a week or so ago, pretty much all of the FIOS plans were asynchronous - a 15meg down/5meg up network was not designed for web browsing and email. For that matter, Verizon is currently billing their lowest speed FIOS plan, at 50up/50down as Stream 2 HD videos simultaneously and for only $20/mo. more you can stream up to 7 HD videos simultaneously Miles Fidelman Richard Bennett wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet for free; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
On Thursday, July 17, 2014 12:24:45 PM Nick Hilliard wrote: there are other drawbacks too: the difference in convergence time between 24k prefixes and a full dfz is usually going to be large although I haven't tested this on an me3600x yet. Not having to install the routes into FIB (even on software- based platforms) makes a ton of difference. Our testing when using this feature on the ME3600X has shown: 1. The switch will download a full copy of the IPv6 table of 18,282 entries in 1 second. This is from 2x local route reflectors, so no latency. 2. The switch will download a full copy of the IPv4 table of 499,437 entries in 3 minutes, 10 seconds. This is from 2x local route reflectors, so no latency. The IPv4 convergence was consuming between 12% - 30% CPU utilization during the table download. This was on the IPv4 table, given its size. The IPv6 didn't bother the switch in any way. The CPU on the ME3600X is a little slow; we've seen far better IPv4 BGP table download times on meatier CPU's, and the CSR1000v, which runs on servers that kick typical router CPU's into the stone age. Also these boxes only have 1G of memory might be a bit tight as the dfz increases. For sure, it's already not enough on a bunch of other vanilla ios platforms. Total memory utilized (for 2x full BGPv4 and BGPv6 feeds, and after IOS deducts system memory for itself) came to 370MB. That left 424MB of memory free. Code is 15.4(2)S. Cheers, Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html You are aware that there are, probably, thousands of eyeball networks doing this right now, right? Drive Slow, Paul Wall
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:51PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. The important phrase there is requested by ISP residential subscribers. You will see this material again. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. A more accurate phrasing would be, You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing, while *telling your customers they can stream video*? That's cute, now provision a few more circuits to your upstreams to handle the traffic that you said you could handle, instead of trying to leverage your monopoly position to rent-seek off me. Entrenched monopoly is what this is all about, ultimately. Nobody in Australia (my home town) talks about Net Neutrality. We don't care. We don't *have* to care. Because no ISP over here currently has a sufficiently captive market to permit them to play chicken with a content provider. Any ISP who did, and held their customer base to ransom, would very quickly find themselves losing customers -- at least that segment of the market that used the relevant content provider's services. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing for the ISP -- less traffic, lower costs, better margins... but at least customers would be able to choose. No such luck in the US, where some eye-wateringly high percentage of users have no choice in who provides them a given service. - Matt
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Wait, I'm confused? Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?! Answer that with something other than because the ISPs more lucrative content business is threatened by Netflix? Stop trying to hide what this so obviously is. Others: Do you know if Netflix peers with tier 1s (level 3, cogent, etc) or purchases capacity? Bennett: Sorry for the double mail, still getting used to gmail on the Android. Jed Robertson On 28 Jul 2014 17:56, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case- for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet for free; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access providers, including the large ones; press releases related to OpenConnect imply that no money is passing hands. You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does Richard Bennett disclose who is funding him and AEI. Call it whatever you want, I think lobbyist is the best word choice. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:12 AM, mcfbbqroast . bbqro...@gmail.com wrote: Wait, I'm confused? Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?! Answer that with something other than because the ISPs more lucrative content business is threatened by Netflix? Stop trying to hide what this so obviously is. Others: Do you know if Netflix peers with tier 1s (level 3, cogent, etc) or purchases capacity? Bennett: Sorry for the double mail, still getting used to gmail on the Android. Jed Robertson On 28 Jul 2014 17:56, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case- for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet for free; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Bill Woodcock wrote: On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Can you say more about what you've done to survey and quantify prevailing practices? https://www.pch.net/resources/papers//peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf We’ll do another one in the run-up to the next OECD carrier interconnection paper. Interesting study. Thanks for the pointer. Given that Netflix is reportedly about 1/3 of Internet traffic these days, and Verizon is huge - how does that come out to .27% of cases? Netflix/Verizon would be 0.0007% of cases, if it’s represented in the dataset. The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness. It is worth noting, though, that not all interconnection are created equal. I wonder how your numbers would come out if you grouped interconnection agreements by amount of traffic exchanged, level of asymmetry, and so forth. And then perhaps by level of competition in the associated markets (do monopoly carriers behave differently than ones where there is a lot of competition?). Just by analogy, the answer to what kind of protocol traffic dominates the net (or is more important) differs considerably if you look at bandwidth vs. transactions (last time I looked, admittedly a little while ago, email still dominates network traffic when you look at transactions; but video clearly eats of most of the bandwidth). Regards, Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Paul WALL wrote: route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access providers, including the large ones; press releases related to OpenConnect imply that no money is passing hands. You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does Richard Bennett disclose who is funding him and AEI. Call it whatever you want, I think lobbyist is the best word choice. It's pretty well established that AEI is primarily a right-wing, conservative, pro-business think tank - with a mission statement that starts: The American Enterprise Institute is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise. (http://www.aei.org/about/) AEI policy studies are pretty consistently anti-regulation. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman
RE: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
I should elaborate the JDSU OCC-56C looks decent. Also any suggestions on basic OSA's? We have a few spans with both passive and boosted light DWDM. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Kaufman Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:13 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: However, I can say what global prevailing business practice is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it: Each network [..] pays their own way to the IXP of their choice that the other party is present at, each network receiving a packet pays their own way from the IXP of their counterpart’s choice that they’re present at, independently in each direction. Hi Bill, I take issue with this claim because: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: The survey was of interconnection norms, not of hugeness. And, Of the total analyzed agreements, [...] 141,512 (99.51%) were “handshake” agreements in which the parties agreed to informal or commonly understood terms without creating a written document. As a result, the data set suffers three flaws: 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. 2. The overwhelming majority of the agreements analyzed were handshake agreements but no picture is available of the handshake agreements those same parties rejected outright or, expecting rejection elected not to pursue. That creates a data bias which could mask any number of factors, leaving you no way to determine that the claimed norm bears any resemblance to the results one might expect when proposing peering with a neighbor. 3. The data supports no affirmative statement about the the peering case most relevant to network neutrality: that of a small network seeking to peer with a large one. More to the point, what agreements occur or fail to occur when one network is in a position to strong-arm the other and does this diverge from the general case? That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've seen. 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: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: The data set suffers three flaws: Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier. That having been said, kudos for the excellent research. As far as objective numbers go, yours are more thorough than any others I've seen. Thank you. We look forward to your participation in the next one! :-) -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
- Original Message - From: Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: The data set suffers three flaws: Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier. I think you're over-specifizing Bill's assertion, Woody. He didn't mean TCP Flows, I don't think; he was simply -- as I understood him -- talking about the 40,000ft view of connections between pieces of the Internet. I don't expect your dataset to have flow-level data, and I don't think he did either; it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having. 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: FTTH and DSLAM Access Vendors
I don¹t know that getting a comparison of all these vendors will do anything for you as each one will have something that tops each other. What I¹ve always done is put my list together of features that I need to run my business and see where each one of the vendors sits after that. You can typically weed out a good % by that first set of questions. We also will give some points to vendors we already deal with and staff is already familiar with using, as training can be a big % of cost. Carlos Alcantar Race Communications / Race Team Member 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com On 7/24/14, 7:49 PM, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote: I am looking for comparisons between the following FTTH GPON and VDSL2 access platforms. Has anyone recently compared the capabilities of each of these platforms? Alcatel-Lucent 7360 ISAM Adtran Total Access 5000 Calix E7 Cisco ME4600 Huawei MA5600T Zhone MXK They all look great on paper, but there has to be some key differences other than price. Besides the vendors listed above, is there anyone else in this market?
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing. He didn't mean TCP Flows, I don't think; he was simply -- as I understood him -- talking about the 40,000ft view of connections between pieces of the Internet. I don't expect your dataset to have flow-level data, and I don't think he did either. How else do you get a representative measurement of “actual traffic flows on the Internet?” We’ve got adjacency information. Telegeography has hand-waving 40,000 ft. flow estimates in the form of different widths of arrows on a map. But if you want to know how large actual flows of data are between two regions of the Internet, and you can’t actually instrument the whole Internet, you need two things: (1) a broad and representative sampling of flow data, and (2) a complete measurement of a few portions of the network that are represented in the sampled set. That gives you a horizontal and a vertical view, from which you can extrapolate to a whole, or any other part, with some minor assurance of reasonability. If someone has an easier methodology to suggest, that still produces usable results, I’m all ears. it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having. I thought I’d made that point? -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote: On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: The data set suffers three flaws: Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly. 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet. There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative of, but it also doesn’t claim to be representative of them. Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing, but if someone can figure out how to do it well, I would be very supportive of their effort. It's a _much_ more difficult survey to do, since it requires getting people to pony up their unanonymized netflow data, which they’re a lot less likely to do, en masse, than their peering data. We’ve been trying to figure out a way to do it on a large and representative enough scale to matter for twenty years, without too much headway. The larger the Internet gets, the more difficult it is to survey well, so the problem gets harder with time, rather than easier. This most likely won’t happen unless it becomes some sort of an international treaty obligation and even then it would end up in courts for a long time. Leaving aside data privacy requirements many carriers have, most companies guard their traffic information rather zealously for some reason. -dorian
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Dorian Kim dor...@blackrose.org wrote: This most likely won’t happen unless it becomes some sort of an international treaty obligation and even then it would end up in courts for a long time. Leaving aside data privacy requirements many carriers have, most companies guard their traffic information rather zealously for some reason. -dorian We'll allow you to keep these connections in place as a legacy favour, but as far as the rest of the world is concerned, they don't exist; we don't pass routes from it along to others, and neither will you. They get used for internal traffic only. Those types of situations are why traffic flow data tends to be kept very, very secret. Every network has its dark corners, its dirty little secrets that shouldn't see the light of day. It's easy to make sure those aren't drawn on the maps released to the public. It's a lot harder to make sure the presence of those edges doesn't become visible if you export actual flow data. Matt
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: Yeah, because when I pay UPS on my corporate account to pick up a package in California and deliver it to me in Virginia, the guy at the pickup in California is asking UPS to deliver it for free. Your claim is twisted man. Twisted. I pay Verizon to connect me to Netflix and the rest of the Internet at substantial speed. Netflix demands only that Verizon give me what I paid for. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: There is no traditional understanding of net neutrality. The term was co-opted to mean many different things the moment it entered political awareness, before any tradition could develop. You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Right, because how could anyone anticipate that more than a handful of folks might want to use 5 or 6 mbps of traffic on a 25mbps flat-rate product for hours at a time. How rude to suggest that an allegedly high speed network designed only to handle the traffic demands of web browsing is little different than that age old confidence scheme, the pig in a poke. 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?
SHDSL / Copper Loop testing
Howdy, I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to identify and isolate loop troubles. Thank you. Mike-
RE: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
I should elaborate the JDSU OCC-56C looks decent. Also maybe the ODPM-48. Also any suggestions on basic OSA's? We have a few spans with both passive and boosted light DWDM. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Timothy Kaufman Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 11:13 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter. I have been looking into DWDM light meters. The JDSU looks good, but I see other brands out there. Does anyone have some recommendations, things to look out for? Thanks, Tim Kaufman
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. As consumers transition from watching multicast TV on the networks' schedule past time-shifting and on to VoD, the traffic demands on the infrastructure will grow by 25 - 40 times. Similarly, the Internet will shift from a tool for reading web sites and watching occasional cat videos to a system whose main job (from the perspective of traffic) is video streaming. The magnitude of the change will necessarily cause a re-evaluation of the norms for interconnection, aggregation, content placement, and protocol design. I think it's a mistake to approach this transformation in a nothing to see here, move along manner. It's reality that packet networks are statistical, especially at the level of aggregation and middle-mile distribution. The Internet's traditional financial model is one in which infrastructure providers make the most serious investments and edge services extract the highest profits. This model may not be the most sustainable one, and it may not be consistent with supporting the upgrades the infrastructure needs for adaptation to this new application. Alternative models - such as Europe's open access regime - fare even worse in this regard than the vertical integration model that's the norm in North America and East Asia. I don't claim to have all the answers here, or even any of them, but I think it's important to keep an open mind and pay attention to what works. I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the entry of government into this market suppresses investments by independent fiber contractors and doesn't necessarily lead to optimal placement of new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving that to be the case, I believe. In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all possible networks, it's just the devil we know. RB On 7/28/14, 10:56 AM, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Right, because how could anyone anticipate that more than a handful of folks might want to use 5 or 6 mbps of traffic on a 25mbps flat-rate product for hours at a time. How rude to suggest that an allegedly high speed network designed only to handle the traffic demands of web browsing is little different than that age old confidence scheme, the pig in a poke. Regards, Bill Herrin -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Re: SHDSL / Copper Loop testing
On 7/28/2014 1:25 PM, Mike wrote: Howdy, I'm looking for reccomendations for a copper-loop test set that can effectively troubleshoot SHDSL. I'm looking for more than 'yup, I got sync' - it would be very helpful to be able to see noise/interference as well as calculate loop length, check bridge taps, and any other kind of metallic testing that would help to identify and isolate loop troubles. Thank you. Mike- Aside from the metrics from inside the modem, you are not going to get much more unless you have access to the telco's internal metallic testing equipment. (I used to fix the CO based equipment that the telco used for that testing before I left in '98) Lyle Giese LCR Computer Services, Inc.
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Astroturfing doesn’t require a fake organization, just fraudulent use of an organization claiming to be grass roots. I guarantee you that the majority of the communities represented by those organizations probably don’t even understand the issue. Of those that do, I suspect that if you polled them, you’d find most of the not backing the position contained in the document. Somehow, the anti-internet-freedom collection of monopoly/oligopoly interests managed to coopt the leadership of those organizations into this astroturf. Owen On Jul 27, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch. It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line retailers, and advertising networks. Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor: A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, Santiago put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/, of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has reported http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/, companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/ with mobile operators around the world to offer a bare-bones version of their service without charging customers for the data. It is not clear whether operators receive a fee http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/ from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages use of their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: Wikipedia has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia. http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/ Actually, I don’t see this ruling as such a bad thing. Internet Freedom? Not so much. We can agree to disagree. I don’t think leveraging one semi-captive audience to build a captive audience for other companies is a good thing. It reduces the potential for new entrants to compete on an even footing. (Not that there aren’t already plenty of barriers to competing with Facebook and/or Google, but adding cross-subsidies from TPC shouldn’t be an additional one. Owen
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? Professor van Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation. This is as absurd as the people you shill^wpoopy-head (per your request) for. The users pay either way. Either the content provider(s) pay the carriers and then bill the users (at a mark up) or the users pay directly (hopefully without the markup). We are, after all, not talking about data that Netflix wants to inflict on the unsuspecting user. We are talking about data that the user REQUESTED from Netflix. Saying “Content providers should pay” sounds great, because it sounds like it gives the end-user a free ride, but the reality is a little different. Let’s have a look at the unintended consequences of such a policy: 1. End users get billed more by the content providers to cover this additional cost. 2. Content providers have to mark up what they are charged by the end-user’s ISPs, and they want to charge a uniform rate to all customers, so the most likely result is that they bill end users based on a marked up rate from the most expensive eyeball ISP they are forced to pay. 3. As a result of these additional charges, you create barriers to competition in the content space which begins to turn content into more of an oligopoly like access currently is. Its a giant step in the exact opposite direction of good. Frankly, I give Netflix a lot of credit for fighting this instead of taking the benefits it could provide and screwing over their customers and their competition. Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on our phone bills. How would you know… Let’s _TRY_ it and see what happens? Subsidy for those situations is probably necessary, but so far, subsidy has always been structured to subsidize monopolies and block competition (at the request(demand) of the very people you shill^wpoopy-head for). If we changed the subsidies a tiny bit so that all subsidized infrastructure was built in a manner open to multiple higher-level service providers (e.g. subsidized open fiber builds to serving wire centers with colocation capabilities) and made those facilities available to all service providers on an equal footing (same cost, same ToS, same SLA, same ticket priority, etc.) I bet you’d see a very different situation develop rather quickly. Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs gouge the rich by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service. Whatever… The bottom line is that overall, throughout the US, even in the most densely populated areas, we are far behind what you can get in places like NL, KR, SG, SE, etc. and paying generally more for it. I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface. OK, so please tell me what are the horrible unintended consequences of making layer 1 an open platform available on an equal footing to all competing L2+ providers that want to compete? As you point out, most L1 has been built with taxpayer money and/or subsidy, so what’s the horrible downside to letting it actually work or the taxpayers instead of the oligopolistic law firms masquerading as communications companies? Owen RB On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out against NN at the last minute. The EFF did recently address the issue. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide quote However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for decades to come. Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or billions) of first-time
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but... Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com writes: I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the entry of government into this market suppresses investments by independent fiber contractors and doesn't necessarily lead to optimal placement of new fiber routes. The First Net experience is proving that to be the case, I believe. People will eventually come to rely on the Internet as a critical piece of infrastructure. And many already do. Provisioning service and routing packets needs to be separated from provisioning physical access in any form. If the governments need to step in to do the latter, I'm happy for them to do so as long as it falls under some lattice of framework similar to the public utilities commission. So that the localities responsible for maintaining the infrastructure are compelled to act responsibly. Or if you *really* want to be in the business of owning infrastructure on a commercial basis, your business should be wavelengths, not packets. In other words, the Internet that we have today isn't the best of all possible networks, it's just the devil we know. -Daniel
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.” Which is as it should be… There’s no reason $EYEBALL_ISP should get to double-bill both their customer and Netflix et. al. for the same traffic. There are a few possible cases… USEREYEBALL_ISPCONTENT_PROVIDER In this case, USER is paying Eyeball ISP and the costs are minimized. USEREYEBALL_ISPPUBLIC_EXCHANGECONTENT_PROVIDER In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and EYEBALL_ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pay PUBLIC_EXCHANGE (minimal fee usually) and costs are still relatively small. USEREYEBALL_ISPTRANSIT_ISPCONTENT_PROVIDER In this case, USER pays Eyeball ISP and CONTENT_PROVIDER pays TRANSIT_ISP. Since both ISPs have been paid by their respective customers, there shouldn’t be any need for money to change hands between TRANSIT_ISP and EYEBALL_ISP. This is the most expensive case for CONTENT_PROVIDER and possibly USER. In all of the above scenarios, EYEBALL_ISPs costs are very similar. There’s really no valid reason for EYEBALL_ISP to attempt to extort money from CONTENT_PROVIDER in order to deliver packets requested by USER who already pays them. No matter how much you spin this or how many times you try to contort it to argue that CONTENT_PROVIDER should be forced to subsidize USER’s service from EYEBALL_ISP, the argument just doesn’t hold water if you actually analyze it. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation.” It seems pretty close to the traditional understanding of net neutrality to me. A neutral network requires that Network A doesn’t try to jack Network B for payment to deliver packets requested by users paying Network A. However, I realize that these facts interfere with your role as a shill^wpoopy-head, so obviously you can’t accept them as in any way legitimate. Owen Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet for free; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. [...], the Internet will shift from a tool for reading web sites and watching occasional cat videos to a system whose main job (from the perspective of traffic) is video streaming. The magnitude of the change will necessarily cause a re-evaluation of the norms for interconnection, aggregation, content placement, and protocol design. Richard, Before Netflix it was Bittorrent. Before Bittorrent it was Usenet. Before the Internet, history records no shortage of companies willing to falsely advertise a product that did less than was claimed. Nor is fraudulent double-billing a recent invention. There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest otherwise, and every one of these eyeball networks sold products which, on paper, were consistent with the use of Netflix. Without requiring additional payment beyond the customers' subscriber fee. And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right through this very minute and beyond. 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: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right through this very minute and beyond. It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe donate some lawyers for the inevitable class action lawsuit for false advertising against the eyeball networks. I imagine other self-interested 900lb gorillas might join the fun too. Mike
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Owen, your mother should have told you that you need to play nice if you want the other children to play with you. On 7/28/14, 12:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? Professor van Schewick is pretty clear about making the users pay for the edge providers in her tome on Internet architecture and innovation. This is as absurd as the people you shill^wpoopy-head (per your request) for. The users pay either way. Either the content provider(s) pay the carriers and then bill the users (at a mark up) or the users pay directly (hopefully without the markup). We are, after all, not talking about data that Netflix wants to inflict on the unsuspecting user. We are talking about data that the user REQUESTED from Netflix. Saying “Content providers should pay” sounds great, because it sounds like it gives the end-user a free ride, but the reality is a little different. Let’s have a look at the unintended consequences of such a policy: 1. End users get billed more by the content providers to cover this additional cost. 2. Content providers have to mark up what they are charged by the end-user’s ISPs, and they want to charge a uniform rate to all customers, so the most likely result is that they bill end users based on a marked up rate from the most expensive eyeball ISP they are forced to pay. 3. As a result of these additional charges, you create barriers to competition in the content space which begins to turn content into more of an oligopoly like access currently is. Its a giant step in the exact opposite direction of good. Frankly, I give Netflix a lot of credit for fighting this instead of taking the benefits it could provide and screwing over their customers and their competition. Competition is a wonderful thing where it can work, but it's not a panacea, especially for the poor and for high-cost, rural areas. Communication policy has pretty much always relied on some form of subsidy for these situations, that's the universal service fee we pay on our phone bills. How would you know… Let’s _TRY_ it and see what happens? Subsidy for those situations is probably necessary, but so far, subsidy has always been structured to subsidize monopolies and block competition (at the request(demand) of the very people you shill^wpoopy-head for). If we changed the subsidies a tiny bit so that all subsidized infrastructure was built in a manner open to multiple higher-level service providers (e.g. subsidized open fiber builds to serving wire centers with colocation capabilities) and made those facilities available to all service providers on an equal footing (same cost, same ToS, same SLA, same ticket priority, etc.) I bet you’d see a very different situation develop rather quickly. Susan Crawford explicitly complains that American ISPs gouge the rich by charging more than the OECD norm for high-speed (50 Mbps and above) service, but she fails to point out that they also charge less than the norm for low-speed (15 Mbps and below) service. Whatever… The bottom line is that overall, throughout the US, even in the most densely populated areas, we are far behind what you can get in places like NL, KR, SG, SE, etc. and paying generally more for it. I think it's easy to create unintended consequences if you don't look at how specific regulations affect real people, no matter how high-minded and principled they may appear at the surface. OK, so please tell me what are the horrible unintended consequences of making layer 1 an open platform available on an equal footing to all competing L2+ providers that want to compete? As you point out, most L1 has been built with taxpayer money and/or subsidy, so what’s the horrible downside to letting it actually work or the taxpayers instead of the oligopolistic law firms masquerading as communications companies? Owen RB On 7/27/14, 7:08 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out against NN at the last minute. The EFF did recently address the issue. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide quote However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services. Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for
Re: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: Also maybe the ODPM-48. I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to work with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). Tom
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest otherwise... This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense conservatism of a certain part of the Internet establishment. I'm inclined to go for new services, new norms, and progress. But that's just my personal bias, not a law of nature. RB -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest otherwise... This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense conservatism of a certain part of the Internet establishment. I'm inclined to go for new services, new norms, and progress. But that's just my personal bias, not a law of nature. Second verse, same as the first. A little bit louder and a little bit worse. 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: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if $IP_PROVIDER throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.
Re: Recommendations for a decent DWDM optical power meter.
We have the Solid Optics DWDM and CWDM power meters. Simple, inexpensive and works well ... http://www.solid-optics.com/category/cwdm-dwdm/power-meter ... n -- K. Neil Davidson +1-720-258-6345 On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tom Hill t...@ninjabadger.net wrote: On 28/07/14 19:33, Timothy Kaufman wrote: Also maybe the ODPM-48. I've got the CWDM version of this, and it does the job. Haven't explored the test result downloading/archiving features (didn't expect them to work with Linux anyway) but overall it was very helpful for measuring loss across various passive muxes (where DDM wasn't available). Tom
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote: And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right through this very minute and beyond. It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe donate some lawyers for the inevitable class action lawsuit for false advertising against the eyeball networks. I imagine other self-interested 900lb gorillas might join the fun too. I think we've seen the first shots of this battle fired already -- Netflix was putting up notices saying your video is crap because $ISP is congested for a little while. I expect that wasn't the last we'll see of that kind of tactic. - Matt -- You know you have a distributed system when the crash of a computer you’ve never heard of stops you from getting any work done. -- Leslie Lamport Security Engineering: A Guide to Building Dependable Distributed Systems
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote: I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if $IP_PROVIDER throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud. I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only. Hey, just wait until the eyeball networks decide they can charge different amounts depending upon their view of the morality of the content being sent... #engage_fly_on_wall_of_boardroom_mode OK, let's see...Netflix traffic, they get charged $2/mb extra, because they show adult situations and brief nudity. Pornhub show explicit material, but it's mostly boobs and butts, so we'll look the other way, and only charge them $4/mb to get past the choke point (because there's no such thing as a fast lane with QoS, there's only normal and be glad we didn't throw it *all* on the floor). Oh my...doublefistingdudes.com...we don't like the idea of naked dudes getting it on over our wires...for them, it's $100/mb if they want their bits to make it to our users. Guess they'll have to jack the price of their content *waaay* up. *sound of high fives all around* #end_fly_mode Hey, if they don't have to be neutral about it, why not enforce their morality through differential pricing, while they're at it? We could even have differential pricing based on days of the week. Oh, you want to send your movies to our users on the holy day, when they should be praying? For that privilege, it will cost you 10x what it does on any other day, for you are luring our users into vice and depravity. That whitelist must be sounding pretty darn tempting to some executives right about now. Forget about censoring content on the internet that they don't like...they can just bill arbitrarily high rates to let it get through. Price it high enough, and nobody will watch it anymore, and they can go to bed happy. Matt getting ready to start a mail-order DVD service that doesn't charge extra based on what you want to watch...
Call for Presentations :: DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014
NANOG, apologies if you have already seen this in a different list. DNS-OARC Fall Workshop 2014 Los Angeles, California, USA Schedule OARC meeting October 11-13 Program announcement August 29th (six weeks before the meeting) Submission deadline August 15th Call for Papers July 20th Meeting announcementJuly 20th Official announcement proposed text, feel free to edit Call for Presentations Next OARC Fall Workshop will take place in Los Angeles, California, USA on October 11th to the 13th, the weekend before ICANN51. On Monday October 13th there will be a joint session with ICANN Tech Day. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DNS data analysis tools and techniques. This workshop continues OARC's tradition of having meetings include a strong operational component. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome. We'll also gladly accept talks from DNS researchers, as well as any other DNS-related subjects such as tools, visualizations, DNSSEC and novel uses of the DNS. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a section of lighting talks will be available for short presentations. Workshop Milestones • 20 July 2014, Call for Presentations posted • 21 July 2014, Open for submissions • 15 August 2014, Deadline for submission • 29 August 2014, Final Program published • 9 October 2014, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/workshop-2014-10 The workshop will be organized on different tracks, depending on the topics. On Sunday October 12th we will have the more in depth technical presentations, and on Monday October 13th presentations that can benefit from a larger and broader audience. If you consider submitting a presentation, please let the Programme Committee know for which track in advance to help us organize the presentations tracks. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via (submissi...@dns-oarc.net) if you have questions or concerns. Mehmet Akcin, for the OARC Program Committee (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)
