Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990.
not so much. that kink came in later
randy
I'm forced to peer with certain African providers in London
and Amsterdam because they don't want to peer in Africa,
where we are literally are an x-connect away from each
other. And the reasons are not even because either of us is
larger or smaller than the other... it's just legacy
On Sunday, May 18, 2014 11:57:51 AM Randy Bush wrote:
which is amusing given you have massive east coast to
europe fiber capacity.
My point exactly - as an operator, it costs me close to
nothing given all the capacity we have (and can further
light) on this path, but the other guys do not
On May 16, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Blake,
I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
Not true. Most cell phones have HD cameras. Most CCD video cameras sold in
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we don’t
see what is really going on which is a battle to deeper (or avoid increasing
peering
capacity with) networks they think they can
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Traffic Symmetry is a distraction that the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS would like us
to
focus on.
The reality is that $ACCESS_PROVIDERS want us to focus on that so that we
don’t
see what is really going on which is a battle to
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:47:53 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase
revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think
the most insightful comment in this discussion was made
by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he
states that ISPs have
On Friday, May 16, 2014 08:52:31 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not
be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even
10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic
over
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:11:56 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
But hey, why peer at little or no cost if they
can instead hold out and possibly peer at a negative
cost?
Because they hope that, one day, you'll cave and become a
customer. Isn't that more prestigious :-)?
Mark.
signature.asc
On Friday, May 16, 2014 09:44:55 PM Scott Helms wrote:
I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve
the upstream you do get an uptick in usage in that
direction. What I take issue with is the notion that
the upstream is anything like downstream even when the
capacity is there.
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit
customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on
peering links.
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 09:05:57 PM Joe Greco wrote:
Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what
the next big thing next year will be but I promise that
I won't host it on my network and cause our traffic to
become lopsided.
You mean like almost every other mobile carrier the
What you're missing is that the transit provider is
selling full routes. The access network is selling
paid peering, which is a tiny fraction of the routes.
Considering they charge on a $per/mb basis I don't think its just routes
they are selling. It looks a lot like they are selling bits. From
All the talk about ratios is a red herring… The real issue boils down to this:
1. The access (eyeball) networks don’t want to bear the cost of delivering
what they promised to their customers.
2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t
expect their customers
On May 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Broadband is too expensive in the US compared to other places
I have seen this repeated so many times that I assume it's true but I have
never seen anything objective as to why. I can tell you if you look at
population
On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
customers. 2. This is because when they built their
business models, they didn’t expect their customers to
use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they
are now using. Most of the models were constructed
around the idea that a
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or
internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly
topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea.
Scott Helms
Vice
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote:
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic
here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers
here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and
population density, in comparison to places like Japan,
parts (but
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH),
putting even more demand on the network,
Oh yes;
Mark,
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the
popularity of OTT video.
Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much
traffic per session.
During peak period, Real-Time Entertainment traffic is by far the most
dominant traffic
Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu
While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball
networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social
media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like
Blake,
None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic
patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly
improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even
if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling
Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I
don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes
less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access
to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they
don't,
Blake,
I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today.
2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it
themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to
entry
Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of
view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me).
While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one
could argue each of the points you've made below.
I do feel that general usage
Blake,
You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find
ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that
connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that
its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that
Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just
supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think
it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral
carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the
overwhelming
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
ratios to be symmetric
is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though?
Blake,
I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has
to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite
target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over ATT making
the same requirement since they have much more in the way of
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering
ratios to be
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat which
is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
signature.asc
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
ISP
to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, James R Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com wrote:
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting.
Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat
which is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections?
James R.
Matthew,
There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what
happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the
use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media
platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows
that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry?
What we saw with FTTH
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential
ISP
to purport
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:45:06 PM Scott Helms wrote:
Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly
asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video.
Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't
generate that much traffic per session.
Our experience showed that there is a
Mark,
I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve the upstream you
do get an uptick in usage in that direction. What I take issue with is the
notion that the upstream is anything like downstream even when the capacity
is there. Upstream on ADSL is horribad, especially the first
On May 16, 2014 12:21 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote:
in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a
Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate…
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite
- Kevin
215-313-1083
On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
I don’t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and broadband
services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, Comcast loses badly.
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM,
Having an actual free market would require having competition. So long as we
have monopoly layer 1 providers being allowed to use that monopoly as leverage
for higher layer service monopolies, (or oligopolies), an actual free market is
virtually impossible.
The result of deregulating the
Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai,
Ookla, etc
What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit
business for 15+ years (with over 8000
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you
throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for the
same reason. I'm going to stop for a while.
- Kevin
On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Nick B
n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org
To be fair, I have no evidence that Comcast demanded money in advance. As
far as I can tell, Level 3, Cogent and Comcast all agree on the rest
though, Comcast's peering filled up. Both Level 3 and Cogent
offered/requested to upgrade. Then at least Cogent (IIRC?) offered to
upgrade *and pay
What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial
transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers).
Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some
of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Peers that are balanced
On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Twisted pair is certantly legacy.
Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is also legacy in terms of
current capacity/speeds ? Or is that technology
On May 15, 2014, at 7:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband),
Akamai, Ookla, etc
I didn’t say they weren’t doing
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then
you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
That is categorically untrue, however
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us
to refuse to upgrade full peers?
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote:
Yes, you've got some of the largest
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org
wrote:
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us to
refuse to upgrade full peers?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it
to 1G, for example. What if a
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a
way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and
Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an
example others will follow.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM,
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you
can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it
end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch
I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of
this... We all need rational actor behavior in the ecosystem. We need our
policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and
inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear
On May 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Twisted pair is certantly legacy.
Is there a feeling that
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain=
it to 1G, for example.
Throttling is also trying to cram 20G of traffic through that same 10G
link.
What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relation=
ship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the
AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, mass amounts of data from Level 3
(Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a
similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope
not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer
agreement spell
If traffic is unbalanced, what determines who is the payer and who is the
payee? Apparently whoever can hold on to their customers better while
performance is shit.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced y=
ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where do=
es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone?
Hi
On 5/15/14, 3:05 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big
thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network
and cause our traffic to become lopsided.
Wow. Is that what you're saying?
Of course not.
JL
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain
balanced y=
ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where
do=
es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 07:29:06AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
The result of deregulating the current environment would only be more pain
and cost to the consumer than we currently have with no improvement in
speeds or capabilities and no additional innovation.
Indeed. While I certainly
Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick.
Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious.
Arvinder
Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for
the same reason.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still
Jason, like Kevin, thank you very much for opening up to us. It is not
every day that someone so close to the issues posts with insight.
From what we see here in India, it is true only Comcast and Verizon are
access networks with peering problems. We are able to reach Cox, RCN,
Charter, Sonoma
Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
7922 to serve a global Internet.
In US, there is not a lot of choke because all the big Internet property -
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon - pay toll to reach Comcast Broadband
customer. If they do not pay u, there is
From: NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of Scott Helms
khe...@zcorum.com
Sent: May 15, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco jgr
Hi,
On May 15, 2014, at 12:12 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote:
Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
7922 to serve a global Internet.
Actually, I suspect Jason is operating 'his' AS to serve Comcast customers
and/or shareholders...
Regards,
-drc
On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see
no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure
from shareholders
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 09:04:11 AM Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
The problem with the internet is that while it had
promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once
penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes.
That depends on your point-of-view and/or interpretation of
growth.
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if
you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do
transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 the
price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less than
1/10th of the overall traffic volume.
My guess is that from the
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:11:30 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks
think they can charge 2/3 the price of full transit
for just their routes when they represent less than
1/10th of the overall traffic volume. The math just
doesn't work out. It's
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
Are there any real-world models out there for
revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
(an alternate way to think of it is as 'delimited
transit', another
On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They
see
no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the
On May 14, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
Are there any real-world models out there for
revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
--As of May 14, 2014 9:23:21 AM -0500, char...@thefnf.org is alleged to
have said:
So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into
So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and
aggressively growing over the top services (which are
Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
So they seek new
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3
the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less
Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite
- Kevin
215-313-1083
On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
or
On 5/14/2014 4:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge
2/3 the price of full transit for just their routes when they
represent less than 1/10th of the overall
Owen,
I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the marketplace.
Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a legacy telco, I would
pick Comcast hands-down for:
a) performance
b) IPv6 support
c) willingness to work on issues
- Jared
On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM,
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:01:36PM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Maybe it is time to try a free market.
Can't do that, it would be UnAmerican!
- Matt
--
I can only guess that the designer of the things had a major Toilet Duck
habit and had managed to score a couple of industrial-sized bottles
So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to keep
paying the transit provider as well at $10.
I would like to
Shouldn't there be a rule against using RIP in the subject line of a
NANOG post?
Every time I see that, a shudder goes down *my* spine.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.com
It could be worse! Somebody might have thrown a 'v1' in there, too, Joel!
Sent from my iPhone
On May 13, 2014, at 8:08, Joel M Snyder joel.sny...@opus1.com wrote:
Shouldn't there be a rule against using RIP in the subject line of a
NANOG post?
Every time I see that, a shudder goes down
On 13 May 2014, at 14:17, coy.h...@coyhile.com wrote:
It could be worse! Somebody might have thrown a 'v1' in there, too, Joel!
Well - just imagine that network without mask.
On public list.
Horrible.
Thankfully, we have civilization stuff, so nothing like that couldn’t
have had happened.
--As of May 12, 2014 3:02:28 PM +0200, Nick Hilliard is alleged to have
said:
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my
friends in last mile providers disagree.
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my
friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign.
Vi's analogy is wrong on a subtle but important
At 09:02 AM 12/05/2014, Nick Hilliard wrote:
So from a business
perspective it makes lots of sense to deprioritise the large companies that
don't pay in favour of the ones that do. Those who pay get better service
for their customers; seems fair, right?
I think that's where the biggest gulf
On Mon, 12 May 2014 15:02:28 +0200, Nick Hilliard said:
a small amount of money. Even better, if you chase the the content sources
for cash, you can do this without increasing customer prices which means
you can stay more competitive in the sales market.
Thank you, I needed my morning
Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the omg it costs a
lot theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the
FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to
keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE
ALREADY
Actually, I've done a bit of overbuild, and it does omg cost a lot.
We don't know how much Google Fiber has paid to build the
network. They're Google, they can do it just because they feel like it.
Of course I don't have any proof, but the rest of your points may not
be far off the mark.
On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my
friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that
On 5/12/14, 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my
friends in
On 5/12/14, 10:07 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On May 12, 2014, at 6:02 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay
person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/.
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
