- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
operational disadvantage in access for that competing product.
I was with you right
On 14-04-29 13:48, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So, how do you explain, and justify -- if you do -- cablecos who use
IPTV to deliver their mainline video, and supply VoIP telephone...
In Canada, our net neutrality rules are called the ITMP, for Internet
Traffic Management Practices which occured as a
It was pointed out privately to me that I may
have caused some confusion here with my
variable substitution. $BB_provider was
intended to be BroadBand provider, *not*
BackBone provider, as some people have
(understandably) misread it. So--to clarify,
this was not meant as any type of
On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
What is absolutely contrary to the public interest is allowing $CABLECO to
leverage their position as a monopoly or oligopoly ISP to create an
operational
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were
sending this:
I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in
order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free
On 14-04-25 00:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that
existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
Egg of Chicken question. Did regulation arise because of marker failure
(monopoly, duopoly), did did regulation create
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
the data at least gets TO the
On 14-04-27 02:58, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the
appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade
capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was
doing the same. So:
Funny how
So L3 and earlier, cogent peer settlement free with Comcast and Netflix
maxes out these peerings while they're there. What then?
On 28-Apr-2014 3:02 pm, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade
$ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic
that their customers request. $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for
internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g.
from $ContentProvider. That covers both directions here
But isn't the whole picture,
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
They're not - but that can (and IMHO should) be
For large ISPs, Netflix provides caching appliances that can be inside
their network, so it is not a question of transit costs. It has
everything to do with a company that is heavily involved in TV, and
which controls the ISP market is such a large areas of USA wanting to
replace lost TV
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers
continue with their crappy last mile
* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you
passed a law that says all content providers big and small must
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
MSOs run expansive IP networks today, including national dark fiber DWDM
networks. They all have way more people with IP expertise than they do RF
expertise. Even modern STBs use IP for many functions since they require
2-way communication, the last hold-out is your traditional TV delivery.
Even
On 4/28/14, 9:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com wrote:
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
http://www.comcast.com/peering
Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
Comcast that
* ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 15:27 CEST]:
Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
How is
On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around.
It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
customer to bill to recoup those
On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
Comcast users the traffic that they
On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links.
And the answer is: at whose instance
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common
Barry Shein wrote:
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes,
by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the
businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living,
On 04/28/2014 02:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for
video. In addition, they may be
Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS
episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping;
the businessman in me (hey, gotta
The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.
...which turns the eyeball network
On 14-04-28 09:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
Analysing the effects of vertical
On 4/28/2014 12:32 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing
something?
...but if that point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast...
Which, from the outside, does appear to have been the case.
...then Netflix would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to
Comcast to get the data at least gets TO the Comcast network.
Which I don't
On 4/26/14, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/
Why isn't it as simple as I'm paying my ISP to deliver the bits to me
and Netflix is paying
If it were through a switch at the exchange it would be on each of them to
individually upgrade their capacity to it but at the capacities they are at
it they are beyond what would make sense financially to go over an exchange
switch so they would connect directly instead. It's likely more along
What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
example the wikipedia article on monopoly or are you so solipsistic
that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
you???
Sorry but
The Fast Lane perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network. If the
content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
data caps. The
Everyone interested in how this plays out today, can read Bill Norton's
Internet Peering book. While some say situations didn't happen this way
or it happened that way doesn't really matter. What is clear and matters
is the tactics/leverage backbones and networks use against each other in
trading
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 5:15 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal free market, if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
tiff, the consumer
On Sun, 27 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
That amount of data is massive scale. I don't see it as double dipping
because each party is buying the pipe they are using. I am buying a 15Mbps
pipe to my home but just because we are communicating over the Internet
doesn't mean the money I am paying
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:08 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN
The comments on the article are FAR more useful than the article itself.
Owen
On Apr 26, 2014, at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
- Original Message -
From: Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
There is a SIP error that amounts to this; 480, I think.
Though, of course, when I had a carrier who
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC
internet services. There are no regulations that support that
monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive
permits, and build out a second
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
Comcast users the traffic that they requested. Is there really
anything more
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links. Releases around the deal seemed to indicate that the peering
was happening at
On Apr 26, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
ports on
Well, that's a metaphorical use of fast lane which is fine but I
think the PR spin by CNBC was to actually give listeners the
impression that they'd get faster service (e.g., on streaming video)
now that this nasty FCC rule was out of the way.
On April 27, 2014 at 14:07 bedard.p...@gmail.com
On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about
whether $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to
$CONTENT_A and less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method
for encouraging subscribers to select $CONTENT_A
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
-Dan
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
And Carterphone should apply to cellular networks, but I am not holding my
breath.
Owen
On Apr 27, 2014, at 6:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
-Dan
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential
Apologies that I dropped offlist as I was out for the day. I think the bulk of
my thoughts on this have already been covered by others since, including e.g.
Matt's poor grandmother and her phone dilemma in the What Net Neutrality
should and should not cover thread.
Basically I think we're on
Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were
sending this:
I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in
order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free agreement is also a
bit disingenuous in cases where the amount of traffic is
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization
On Apr 24, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
doesn't prove I'm
On 4/26/2014 3:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
This is absolutely false. Regulating monopolies CAN protect
monopolies, but that’s not always the outcome.
Monopolies absolutely
On 4/26/2014 3:11 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In my neighborhood, Comcast has a monopoly on coax cable tv and HFC
internet services. There are no regulations that support that
monopoly. Another company could, theoretically, apply, receive
permits,
Wait! What?
Like if I want to build a pipeline
h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian
FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality
http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-728770/
Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho!
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
Okay, I'm not as seasoned as a big chunk of this list, but please correct me if
I'm wrong in finding this article a crock of crap. With Comcast/Netflix being
in the mix and by association Cogent in the background of that there's
obviously room for some heated opinions, but here goes anyway...
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net
wrote:
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to die.
Hell, I remember back in '98 when it was triple digit, and not small values
at that. We've come a long way.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA,
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
doesn't prove I'm right
On 2014-04-25 15:23 , Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[..]
While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I
have exactly one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to
convinced that a purely open market would not have resulted in the
same problem. But thanx for pointing out an
On 04/25/2014 08:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed
without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
gulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
The government actually had to step in to hinder them, as I recall,
though I believe it was
I beg your indulgence..
On Apr 25, 2014, at 0:29, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
...On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG
does not change the facts. Then again, just
On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an
effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently
beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has
only recently faded somewhat in the face of
Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the
monopoly tactics on the part of major players.
I'm confused. Can you elaborate on how net neutrality would protect major
players? Do you mean major content providers? Major broadband providers?
--
Hugo
On Apr 25, 2014, at
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like patent
enforcement == government protected monopoly, we are at an impasse.
I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and
stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we would
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like patent
enforcement == government protected monopoly, we are at an impasse.
Well, leaving aside what one thinks of patents and copyrights - a
government protected monopoly is EXACTLY what a patent
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
You are asking a wrong question all they care about is Where's my moneyTM
adam
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a
router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
customers, Cogent. Cogent
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch. :)
pgpi7z4ivHaAa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
Gee whiz, why
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
--Chris
Valdis, we will give you more time to read the entire post before
responding. That way you might not mislabel or misspeak as often. :-)
Bob Evans
CTO
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 07:53:49 -0700, Bob Evans said:
Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?
Spoken like a true oligarch.
On 4/24/2014 9:59 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think you and I disagree on the definition of anti-competitive.
But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the
FCC thing was timely and operational.
I agree with you, Patrick. Double digit/meg pricing needs to
My take here is that I'd rather the FCC just leave it alone and see if
the market doesn't work it out in some reasonable way. That is, to not
even address it in rules, whether accept or prohibit. Just step back
and make sure that all you see is dust rising and not smoke. These
things take a while
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/maintain-true-net-neutrality-prote
ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy
-Original Message-
From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:patr...@ianai.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 5:15 AM
To: North American Operators' Group
Subject: The FCC
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
I'd like to propose a new ICMP message type 3 code --
Communication with Destination Network is Financially Prohibited
Wait; it should be a new type code message, so the header format/data
section can be
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the opposite.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Apr 24, 2014, at 17:57 ,
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating monopolies allows a market to work, not the
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is
On 4/24/2014 8:38 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there is a
monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market Power is extracting Rents.
(Capitalization is intentional.)
Regulating
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without regulation.
You are confused.
I think Mr.
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:01 , Everton Marques everton.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
On 4/24/2014 10:44 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net
wrote:
On 4/24/2014 10:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The invisible hand of the market cannot fix problems when there
is a monopoly.
Put in economic terms, a player with Market
Might one example of what Larry is talking about be cable providers? Also
telephone companies.
They are often awarded exclusive contracts within cities.
Do regulations prohibit anyone from becoming a cable company, in addition to
capital costs and difficulty of easements?
-Kiriki Delany
On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopolies from competition.
Monopolies can not persist without
The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation cannot be
used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of phrase to prove a
point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad argument. Yeah, the phrase
regulated monopoly exists, therefore monopolies can't exist without
On 4/24/2014 11:37 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The fact there are regulated monopolies does not mean regulation
cannot be used to keep a monopoly from forming. And using a turn of
phrase to prove a point of logic and/or history is a pretty sad
argument. Yeah, the phrase regulated monopoly
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty
non-operational now.
In a
91 matches
Mail list logo
