- Original Message -
> From: "Jimmy Hess"
> Hey, what part of "up to 8Mbps" is an assurance, that the system supports
> 8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be
> delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a
> business service that does
I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent
advertising.
Nick
On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, "Matthew Petach" wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker >wrote:
>
> > * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
> >
> > Doesn't sound too
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
>
> Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure
>> it would raise costs, as that testing and validation
>> wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to
>>
* mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure
it would raise costs, as that testing and validation
wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to
pay an additional $10/month on our service to be
sure it could deliv
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> This is exactly my point. If a subscriber can use the service for 30
> consecutive days and never achieve the "8Mbps" because the network is
> incapable by design, or by virtue of its over subscription is statistically
> impossible of deliver
This is exactly my point. If a subscriber can use the service for 30
consecutive days and never achieve the "8Mbps" because the network is
incapable by design, or by virtue of its over subscription is
statistically impossible of delivering it, then I believe this is false
advertising. I, and mo
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Keith Medcalf wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when
it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if
any) because the ISP hasn't put in t
I see this argument, and then I remember working for a company that happily
sold 6 and 12 meg dsl from a dslam that was backhauled by a 3mb pair of t1s.
There needs to be some oversight that it is at least possible / likely to
reach a reasonable expectation of normal destinations with the service
* kmedc...@dessus.com (Keith Medcalf) [Sat 22 Mar 2014, 20:16 CET]:
The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a
network.
That is a great attitude that will bring you far in life
>I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
>ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when
>it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if
>any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps
>per
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>> The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
> I'd prefer competition to regulation.
When regulation is done well, competition is the result. Consider the
following hypothetical regulation:
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just
> because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have
> been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running
very marg
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
> I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
> ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it
> comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any)
> because th
Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;)
On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, "Paul Ferguson" wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA256
>
>Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
>
>Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
>enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks,
enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
- - ferg
On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
> Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the
requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my
traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these
carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of
³hosting² pro
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey
wrote:
> This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
>
> You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those
that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
+1
Is this what happens when a vendor gets too big?
-Petter
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Socha [mailto:br...@digitalocean.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:35 AM
To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu
Cc: nanog list
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to up
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
On 3/20/14, 9:34 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
>We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't
>care
>what their excuse is, the
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> The solution seems to be competition or regulation.
I'd prefer competition to regulation.
--
Bryan Fields
727-409-1194 - Voice
727-214-2508 - Fax
http://bryanfields.net
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing.
We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care
what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd
rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else
for t
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a
functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in
ma
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> "The market" can only "work around" things if there is a
> functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning
> market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in
markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:16:26 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
> I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of
> business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers
> "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to
> delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps
> (if any) beca
On Mar 20, 2014, at 08:39 , Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
>> "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
>> finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
>> what t
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 7:39 AM:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
"tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
what the r
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
> The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a
> "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for
> finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer,
> what the rest of us have known for decades.
Every time th
On Mar 19, 2014, at 15:00, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> L3 escalates on Peering/CDN/Neutrality.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-internet-slowdowns-on-isps-refusal-to-upgrade-networks/
The devil on my left shoulder wants to laugh at L3 for their hypocrisy.
Th
28 matches
Mail list logo
