Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Bill, This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to make

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall. Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the averag

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote: We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good thi

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people. I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 12:58, Lamar Owen wrote: On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: (*SNIP*) Now, the R&O isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out 47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR. Here's a link: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3f0ad879cf046fa8e4edd1

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 12:49, Stephen Sprunk wrote: This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people. *snrk* Really? Ok, I'll let my Inner Cynic out for a romp - the US

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote: How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that a

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote: That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lo

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

AFC, the only shelf I worked on that would silently allow you to allocate so much bandwidth to the ADSL cards that voice wouldn't work Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms ---

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, William Herrin wrote: > double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access > to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you). Imagine: We're sorry Mr. Homeowner, you do have a 200 amp electrical service but we limit power tool us

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I think you may see more than average numbers of creative types at a university environment. Once you have a full time job you tend to have less time for "creative endeavors". I can say that having thousands of customers, the content producers are definitely a minority. I would even guess tha

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does no

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 --

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? You were allowed to see the proposed rules in the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: > The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely > unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. Hi Bruce, We part ways there. I see nothing inherently wrong with asymmetric connections. I see nothing inherently wrong with whitel

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Jack, I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413) Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC) su

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27-Feb-15 10:52, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: >> What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? > > The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the > duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. Thi

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 10:43, wbn wrote: On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote: Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? Yes, I am that old. You were not allo

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

These standards are for the interoperability of the equipment between vendors. There is no technical reason that you could not have one particular speed in one direction and any other speed in the opposite direction as long as you do not exceed the total bandwidth potential of the loop. In fac

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Let's not discuss Comcast and its performance in the customer service department so not to completely sidetrack the discussion... Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said: >> What about ISPs that

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 12:27, Naslund, Steve wrote: That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect r

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down. And when you expand to several bi

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Actually most users would perceive a download increase as a speed upgrade because they are not hitting the performance limits of the upstream. In the DSL world, there is a maximum reliable speed attainable due to the physics involved in high speed transmission over copper. More speed in one di

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Jack, I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413) - ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 , up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s - G.dmt <

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? They're still in business? In all seriousness though, that's a fair question. What are the downsides of Title II w/o tariffs for for ISPs who aren't engaging in Bad Behavior? Regards, Bill Her

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information,

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:03:35 -0500, Bruce H McIntosh said: > The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely > unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live > up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free > exchange of ideas

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

l.com - Original Message - From: "Bruce H McIntosh" To: "NANOG" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:03:35 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote: > What about ISPs that aren't world-class di

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said: > What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem. For instance, Comcast has (so far) provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my bill, and the few times I've had to d

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 09:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet Cute. Obviously they never watched the Leno segment where a pair of amateur radio ops using Morse code outperformed a couple of teens using

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote: What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world thr

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: > What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court or FCC ruling they require... -

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "William Herrin" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:34:37 AM Subject: Re: Verizo

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote: > > > >> Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" >> over the last 50 years under Title II. >> Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? > > Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein wrote: > Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over > the last 50 years under Title II. > Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? No, but I remember in the late '90s AT&T demanding I mai

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

This PR reminds me of a story I heard about a few telegraph operators in the early 1930s. Mr. Nathan 'Nat' Flax and Mr. Hu Toob were telegraph operators for the mighty VerizonTelegraph Corporation. Misters Flax and Toob were able, through natural abilities and long practice, able to send telegra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: [VERISON should say...] this won't effect us at all Until those hundreds of pages are made public, how can anyone possibly know if that if that is even a truthful statement? Furthermore, what they SAY they intend to do with that authority... and wh

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 07:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote: > > >> Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" >> over the last 50 years under Title II. >> Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? > > Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of y

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 07:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things > like CALEA. The first indications of any changes would be Cisco and Juniper announcing CALEA products in their low- and mid-line network products. Or there may be some near-startup

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote: > > Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own. But that didn't stop most of us old timers on this list. The first "digital" circuit that I played with as a kid was an old Strowger switch pulled from a junk yard.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 06:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet > OK. The Morse code I knew about, from news stories. What I didn't know is that the "translation" would be PDF of 1930s-style typewritten t

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: > btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... > those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... > anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? It was in the FCC story: the rules (that thi

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

The funniest thing about Verizon complaining about Title II, is that they used Title II to roll out their FIOS FTTP. I really am unsure of what they expected the outcome to be, and further proves the point of how big of a mess ISP¹s in this country are. Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of: "We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good business practices on others" (As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favo

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across, just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: > Scott Fisher, > > I think Verizon's statement wa

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Bob Evans wrote: Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own. Let's also remember that it

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" > over the last 50 years under Title II. > Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own. Bob Evans CTO

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing letters to completel

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some > people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of > Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as > having supported SOPA. Morse code is just a different binary encoding

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

"Blah blah politics". This is Verizon whining. plain and simple. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: > Scott Fisher, > > I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some > people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of > Obama's

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

something. Whenever that day comes... - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Rob McEwen" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:50:16 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Scott Fisher, I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA. btw - does anyone know if that thic

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Got your attention. Made a statement. Good for them. "NANOG" wrote on 02/27/2015 09:10:58 AM: > From: Scott Fisher > To: Larry Sheldon , NANOG list > Date: 02/27/2015 09:12 AM > Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality > Sent by: "NANOG" &

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

day, February 27, 2015 8:10:58 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher wrote: > Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. > > On Fri, Feb 27

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher wrote: > Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote: >> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursd

<    1   2   3