On 12/19/2010 06:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
they may be onto something. We don't have to
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
company who wishes to provide IP to
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compete on a
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a month so there can
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:12:02PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JC Dilljcdill.li...@gmail.com said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
50 - it simply won't make financial
On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You can send letters
Technically, this is illegal. You can send documents via FedEx and UPS.
just as well as packages via the other carriers.
The USPS monopoly on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter
You can send letters just as well as packages via the other carriers.
The USPS monopoly on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx,
UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
There are certain legalities involved with first class mail that is not
the same with
Yes... This is where the market makes it best philosophy fails. When
the
market has become entrenched in one way of doing things, a better way
can face serious opposition because of this very fact.
The problem is that we don't *have* a market in many places. We have a
monopoly provider and
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
C 1925 when each subscriber (or party line) had their own pair:
http://pinkbunnyears.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/telephone-pole.jpg
true beauty that only a perl code maintainer could fully appreciate
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
a two a
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:14:01PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
That's rich, given the enormous quantity of spam sourced from Comcast's
network over the last decade. (And yes, it's ongoing: 162 unique sources
in the last hour noted at one small
On 12/17/2010 2:51 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:
Negotiating
these terms with each municipality was the price that companies had to
pay for monopoly access to local markets.
I've seen it apply to CLEC access into a market as well; running as a
true CLEC and not just borrowing LEC lines.
Deals
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design)
motivated by profit.
I wasn't really talking about
George Bonser wrote:
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design)
motivated by profit.
I wasn't
They do already. It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc. -
they
get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the
charge
on per eyeball to the customer.
Nothing is new here.
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO subscriber?
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
George Bonser wrote:
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access
George Bonser wrote:
They do already. It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc. -
they
get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the
charge
on per eyeball to the customer.
Nothing is new here.
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO
On 15/12/10 10:40 PM, George Bonser wrote:
From: JC Dill
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider with
better
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile competition;
I agree.
see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding*
municipalities to charter monopoly
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:05:26 CST, Jack Bates said:
request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better
service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball
networks won't get the option to receive compensation from content
providers and have to charge
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile
competition;
I agree.
It exists where there is an ROI on
On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
This is why I suggested it might take regulatory action, or changes in state
laws.
Also engage locality first, as Jared indicates. The problem in going to the
fed is that power
will be skewed to the larger entities. Competitive
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:13 PM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast. But Comcast wants
to
get paid from the content provider. I think they are betting that in
the long run it's easier
On 16/12/10 7:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
I disagree with this theory.
If customers pay comcast for bytes then eventually the upstream (L3)
will want some of that revenue.
And I want a pony.
What the upstream wants and what market forces will decide could be
very different. And as
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 05:47:09 pm Adam Rothschild wrote:
What we have here is Comcast holding its users captive, plain and
simple. They have established an ecosystem where, to reach them, one
must pay to play, otherwise there's a good chance that packets are
discarded.
[snip]
Folk
But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I
am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hulu!
Sure netflix is right but by the time it matters
If ponies are being handed out, count me in.
Sure, market forces can do lots of strange things, for example, see our
current position.
Pretty much any scheme breaks terribly when there is a monopoly, since the
only company involved gets to remove the relationship between cost and
profit.
On
On 16/12/10 7:55 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
If ponies are being handed out, count me in.
Sure, market forces can do lots of strange things, for example, see
our current position.
Pretty much any scheme breaks terribly when there is a monopoly,
How well did the lawsuits against Microsoft's
On 12/16/2010 10:54 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I
am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hulu!
How well did the lawsuits against Microsoft's monopoly work to reduce
their ability to use their monopoly to manipulate the market?
jc
Why don't you ask the folks over at The Technical Committee
(http://www.thetc.org), since they monitor Microsoft compliancy for the DOJ.
Randy
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:05:02 am Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Surely serving a bumper video at the beginning - Comcast is trying to
charge you more for Netflix - see http://www.netflix.com/comcastripoff/;
- would be enough?
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Could be on the
On 12/16/10 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
Funny thing about competition is that there are losers as well as winners.
DSL competition
didn't lose by regulation, it lost (nationally) by cheaper, more elastic
bandwidth available
on other media and JC's previously-noted fickle and lazy
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, JC Dill wrote:
Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast. But Comcast wants to get
paid from the content provider. I think they are betting that in the long
run it's easier to make money from content providers (and have the content
providers charge customers or
On 16/12/10 8:17 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 12/16/10 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
Funny thing about competition is that there are losers as well as
winners.
DSL competition
didn't lose by regulation, it lost (nationally) by cheaper, more elastic
bandwidth available
on other
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:20:23 am Justin M. Streiner wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see any provider (content or otherwise) tell
Comcast (as things stand today) to pound sand when asked to enter into
such a 'paid peering' arrangement with them.
It comes down to the business
On 12/16/2010 9:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
Comcast can now charge its customers only for upkeep of its network and use
the income they get as an end point delivery network to offset customer
cost. Comcast's cost, which are upkeep and expansion of its physical
network, now scale proportionally
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
Sent: Dec 16, 2010 11:05 AM
On 12/16/2010 10:54 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
I pay Netflix 10$ a month
On 12/16/2010 7:47 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:05:26 CST, Jack Bates said:
request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better
service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball
networks won't get the option to receive
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
1) Comcast believes they can exact a great deal of revenue from
content networks. For this to be comparable to their captive
customers, per-megabit rates must be reminiscent of pre-Level3 days,
when $30/Mb was a bargain. This would spell bad news for Netflix. Of
course,
On 16/12/10 8:52 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/16/2010 9:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
Comcast can now charge its customers only for upkeep of its network
and use
the income they get as an end point delivery network to offset
customer
cost. Comcast's cost, which are upkeep and expansion of its
If Comcast is charging providers to carry bits, how long until Verizon does
the same? it becomes an everyone else is getting paid situation.
I think it is better for the the content providers to be financially
responsible for efficiency of transmission, which only happens when they
(not the
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to say
about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many witnesses:
my management is pretty disgusted with the badmouthing and accusation slinging
on nanog.org btw
the demands to disclose confidential data
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turning
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot
backdoorpar...@hotmail.com wrote:
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to
say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
witnesses:
my management is pretty disgusted with the
the demands to disclose confidential data on the blog aren't helping either
It's always interesting how things like bandwidth displays are considered
confidential data particularly when they show something bad.
The best service providers will actually provide the statistics without
being
: December-16-10 12:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to
say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
witnesses:
my management is pretty disgusted
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
that traffic was actually *costing* them money to
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
of us which is very much appreciated...
I'm sure the concern is that Comcast signed up to
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
of us which is very much appreciated...
All that said, the whole issue of 'local content' is going to continue to
rage on
for years to come. Getting the content closer to the end user is going to be
a
key to reducing costs for the long-tail providers to homes and businesses.
Should it be incumbent on the CDNs to pay for colo at
That seems to be Off Topic.
The operational implications for most of us is, most likely, much more
technical bookkeeping and data storage.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
What is in the best interests of the customer?
Nathan
James R. Cutler
On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot wrote:
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to
say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
witnesses:
(snip)
With all due respect, logs or GTFO. I can find no mention of this outside
On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
On 16-Dec-2010, Paul Stewart p...@paulstewart.org sent:
Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG
community? I know they attend many conferences and share their
experiences with a lot of us which is very much appreciated...
Just asking ;)
On 12/16/2010 09:38 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot wrote:
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to say
about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many witnesses:
(snip)
With all due respect, logs
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things
to say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
witnesses:
(snip)
With all due respect, logs or GTFO. I can find no mention of this outside
of your email.
I would expect there to be quite a few
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
The idea of buying colocation from a last-mile ISP to reduce that last-mile
ISP's costs seems (at first glance) to be a hysterically unfair proposition -
though it seems that incumbent ISPs may have great enough leverage to extract
this
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
From: JC Dill
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If the customer pays the cost
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
I was in the IRC channel at the time and saw it. It's real.
I don't support the posting of IRC logs, but can't control that either.
I saw it too. I don't support posting of IRC logs trying to get people
in trouble (though lord
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 09:47 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
(...) All we're ending up with is what is mostly hearsay being treated as
facts.
One consumer organization in France during the ongoing debate with
regulators on network neutrality called for network operator to publish
some verifiable
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:13:47PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Seriously guys, this is an operator forum and you're running a congested
network, to expect that people are not going to comment on those facts
just because you've put money into NANOG sponsorship is absurd.
Forgot to
On 12/16/2010 2:13 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
I was in the IRC channel at the time and saw it. It's real.
I don't support the posting of IRC logs, but can't control that either.
I saw it too. I don't support posting of
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I do. And yes, they are happy to fuck with a billion dollar a month
revenue stream (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a precedent
so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the *same* customer
We
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13:21PM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
You may find that simply fewer content providers decide it's worth it to play
in that space, under those conditions, which results in fewer choices for the
consumer, and something closer to a monopoly on the available content
to
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I do. And yes
George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
I
- Original Message -
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
What customers *really* want, and what they gladly accept as long as
it saves them a few pennies, are miles apart. (Which is why so many
people blindly give their data to Facebook etc.) This is why I think the
direction
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
Turn the question around. What would any provider think if a city said
sure, you can have access to our residents' eyeballs. It will cost
you $5 per subscriber per month. Would Comcast or anyone go for that?
That is a real
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:20 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
cluebrin...@gmail.com wrote:
Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
(or peering) links at
Laurent,
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
Laurent
Yes, now you need to multiply that by the numerous other ports that have the
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 05:31 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Laurent,
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
Laurent
Yes, now
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute
On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:09 AM, ML wrote:
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
At that bandwidth level, isn't $30/mbit roughly
...@lewis.org
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:46:13 -0500 (EST)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free
to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
-Kevin Neal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote:
According to:
On 12/15/2010 05:09 AM, ML wrote:
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this
xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:46:13 -0500 (EST)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010
From Tata? I'd eat my own hand if they were paying more than $1-2
across the board.
Jeff
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 12/15/2010 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
They can't be paying more than a couple of dollars per Mbps.
$10 tops for any provider
On 12/15/2010 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
They can't be paying more than a couple of dollars per Mbps.
$10 tops for any provider than can hand off a 10GE pipe; and at
full-rate multiple 10GE, you can expect it to be less than $5.
Jack
You mean it is not a settlement free peering agreement?
(sorry top post, following trend)
~J
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:26 AM
To: Jack Bates
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:25:53PM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
From Tata? I'd eat my own hand if they were paying more than $1-2
across the board.
I know people who have offered them hundreds of gigs of settlement free
transit (including myself), but clearly they aren't interested. FYI a
large
It seems you are making some false assertions.
1) If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this
connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable.
This is a false conclusion. Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Mikel Waxler wrote:
1) If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this
connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable.
This is a false conclusion. Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared across
On 12/15/2010 3:51 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
That depends on your definition of 'never'. You can oversell your
network capacity...everyone does...and not run with the pipes full 99%
or better of the time.
At max capacity, we'd run roughly double our total transit capacity, yet
we rarely exceed
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 EST, Mikel Waxler said:
The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File
servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or
streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as the average data rate
allocated per customer is
On 12/15/10 14:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 EST, Mikel Waxler said:
The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File
servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or
streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as
Jon,
snip
Ratios only make sense between peers. When you're buying transit, you
don't get to enforce ratios and tell your transit providers you're not
going to pay (or they're going to pay you) because they're sending you too
much traffic. Back when I ran a dialup network, and our traffic
Again, I was not commenting on the state of comcast's pipe. God knows I want it
bigger. I was saying that some of the assumptions upon which he made based
points were false.
--Original Message--
From: Nathan Angelacos
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks
On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal ke...@safelink.net wrote:
Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free
to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
I don't see how this
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 -0500, Mikel Waxler doo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared across all users. ...
a single new connection would not noticeably effect others.
I love how people demonstrate how they've
On 12/15/10 2:37 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
Jon,
If ratios are really a concern and you really need to maximize your port
capacity, there are ways to balance this; balance your customer base. Start
hosting content. Now, this might not help on private peering interconnects,
but if you peer
1) Sure, if those streams are only video streams and they can only exist at
5mbps. In reality, a network of 16 million users has lots of types of
streams and some like file downloads, UDP data for game players, video with
user buffers, etc, are capable of getting squeezed a little.
It seemed that
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:38:27PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content
providers should be paying them for access to their customers. I've seen
them repeatedly state that they feel networks who send them too much
traffic
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:38:27PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content
providers should be paying them for access to their customers. I've seen
them repeatedly state that they feel
On 12/15/2010 4:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Folk in
content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.
So you don't think the money content providers will pay Comcast won't
reflect on other eyeball networks who aren't important/large enough to
request financing? ie, Comcast
,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jba...@brightok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 6:05 PM
To: Adam Rothschild
Cc: Kevin Neal; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast
101 - 200 of 236 matches
Mail list logo
