Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote: > No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat > justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not. > > I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone > have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 1

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is >> sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N >> people where N is the number of people

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine wrote: > With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk > mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal, > therefore the providers can't block it. > How would this legal environment be any different than the pre

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32:23PM -, John Levine wrote: [...] > With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk > mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal, > therefore the providers can't block it. Yeah... I've had a recurring nightmare for a while

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 28/Feb/15 07:15, Philip Dorr wrote: > > WiFi has two separate data rate selections. The download could be at > 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps. Or even the other way. WiFi is > also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you > should expect is 150mbps. This i

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote: > Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is > sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N > people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream > bandwidth will be N*upst

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, "Miles Fidelman" wrote: > > Jack Bates wrote: >> >> On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. P

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28/Feb/15 07:09, Joe Greco wrote: > Only partially. It is also a phenomenon of having built the first > broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a > whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort > of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy: broadband n

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 20:58 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 27/Feb/15 19:48, 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 ac

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/Feb/15 20:04, Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been > pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans? Not sure how > well it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON, > which tops out at 155Mbps for uploads -

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/Feb/15 19:48, 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 do

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/Feb/15 19:40, Naslund, Steve wrote: > We also sold SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were > generally businesses. That was because of the way it was priced and marketed. Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/Feb/15 19:27, 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 refl

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 02:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: What is that statement based on? I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric speeds. Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic patterns beca

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA. At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to harass an administration's political opponents, right? On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> Again, well settled. >> >> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is >> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On 27/Feb/15 19:13, 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 expa

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, >> for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering). > > I would prefer they repla

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27/Feb/15 19:13, 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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/Feb/15 19:07, Mike Hammett wrote: > More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about > symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or > cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download. But what comes first? I argue users w

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Jack Bates wrote: On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Folks, Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were ju

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Again, well settled. > > It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is > served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place > where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve a

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 5:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: That's my point. NANOG users are not the average user. For every one of you there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies and a couple

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Owen > On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:08 , Michael Hallgren wrote: > > Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit : >> Any website which does not violate the law. >> >> In other words, if a lawful takedown order > > So, subject to legal control rather than simply admin

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, > for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering). I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet traffic"; with "Int

Re: utility capacity, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

John, That's an excellent point. Consider Google fiber, for example. And customer could theoretically demand a gigabit of traffic. Even Google admits that this doesn't scale and that they are highly oversubscribed. -mel beckman On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:05 PM, "John Levine" wrote: >> Water, gas

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:28:11 -0400, deles...@gmail.com said: > I wonder if lawyer sit around all day and argue about CIDR notation Almost certainly not, because there's no murky gray areas about CIDR notation, much less ones that potentially affect how they do their jobs. pgpUYL92MiSPB.pgp Descr

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Build it and they will come is a good way to go out of business in this industry. Steven Naslund Chicago IL > >It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload to >begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. >How many more people would stream to t

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

>> Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband >> technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is >> transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both > >pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be > >done bu

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <54f0e159.2000...@satchell.net> you write: >One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC >will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for >television during the time of the "fairness doctrine". I agree, that's not going to happen. With the

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's my point. NANOG users are not the average user. For every one of you there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies and a couple Word docs. Steven Naslund Chicago IL >Hmm..

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Feb 27, 2015, at 18:12 , Jim Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this >> is pretty well settled. >> >> And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is again

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <54f0d533.70...@vocalabs.com> you write: >My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level. It is. Just throttle your download speed to match your upload speed. R's, John

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

I wonder if lawyer sit around all day and argue about CIDR notation Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.   Original Message   From: Jim Richardson Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:26 PM Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...] On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 a

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 5:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical last mile. And not that PON shit. The real stuff or bust. Yeah. Then they complain when a tornado wipes out their power and they can't make a phone call. It's a real world. Things are n

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>William Waites wrote: >This is a self-fulling prophecy. As long as the edge networks have asymmetry >built into them popular programs and services will be developed that are >structured to >account for this. As long as the popular programs and services >are made like this, the "average user" >

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 2/27/2015 4:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: You could do that. The only issue is that you are putting in more intelligent CPE that has to be frequency agile and signal to the head end what is happening. Carriers are very sensitive to CPE costs so I don't think that is likely to happen especi

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is > pretty well settled. > > And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against > the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not l

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:49:04PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jba...@paradoxnetworks.net): > Ideally, I suspect that most people would prefer a more > variable approach, allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for > upload and dow

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Completely wrong. Sorry, but most network traffic is not symmetric. In corporate environments traffic flows much more heavily from server to client. Home networks are very highly asymmetric because upstream you see URL requests and downstream you have media streams. PON networks were designe

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit : > Any website which does not violate the law. > > In other words, if a lawful takedown order So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right? mh > has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to > provid

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>When I was involved with private-loop provision, what I noticed here in >northern Nevada is that the provisioning of T1 circuits moved from baseband >signalling to SDSL. >From the standpoint of cable management, the splatter >from SDSL was MUCH lower than the splattering of baseband T1, so i

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

What is that statement based on? I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric speeds. Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic patterns because it would make life easier for us. Remember t

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > > What is that statement based on? I have not seen any outcry for more > symmetric speeds. Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering > issues and if it were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more > symmetric traff

Re: utility capacity, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on >oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of >all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand >standpoint. Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here. We size

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." > > Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by > having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? If the option sells, it will be offered. It didn't. W

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:11, Stephen Satchell wrote: > > transcription on an old Underwood Portable that had seen much, much > better days. You’d think they could afford a new typewriter or two with all of the Universal Service fees they’ve been collecting and not providing.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Even so, what makes the channel assignments static? If the downstream bands are sitting idle, why can't they be reallocated for use by modems needing to send more? Or, presuming upstream isolation between modems, why can't multiple channels be dynamically allocated to a modem when there is avai

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > "I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup > solution. > I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their > pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(" > > Are you really trying to say th

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

>I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric. I agree, most homes are not symmetric, the two biggest services are cable modem and DSL which are usually asymmetric. >Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start thinking more >dynamic when they build

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > My point is not that upstream > speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and > unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is > growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstr

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <11287607.8005.1425056798993.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write: >More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about >symmetry. It's a >simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload >are taken out of MHz >for download.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Any website which does not violate the law. In other words, if a lawful takedown order has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site. Owen > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson wrote: > >> From 47CFR§8.5b > (b) A person en

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is pretty well settled. And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

I think "terminating access monopoly" is (rightly IMO) the litmus test for coverage, but I am not an attorney either... $0.02, -a On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote: > I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are > released, but my guess is it pote

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

"I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(" Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could lower their prices

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > "hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). > I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice > server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?" > > Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Stephen is dead on here. In DOCSIS the downstream communication happens in one or more normal cable TV channel band, ie 6MHz channels from 54 MHz to 890MHz. The upstreams will be (in most cases) either 1.6 MHz, 3.2 MHz, or 6.4MHz wide and in the 5-42 MHz range. Scott Helms Vice President of Tec

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:04 , Miles Fidelman wrote: > > 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 > other

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 19-Feb-15 -to- 26-Feb-15 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS2119 702188 10.3%3221.0 -- TELENOR-NEXTEL Telenor Norge AS,NO 2 - AS61894 343

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Feb 27 21:14:26 2015 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may initially think. For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since they also provide in many cases retail access to schools, hospital

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

While it’s amusing, it’s a serious distortion of the reality of the situation. Owen > On Feb 27, 2015, at 06:05 , Larry Sheldon wrote: > > http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet > -- > The unique Characteristics of System Adm

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 12:44 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote: > I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to > "broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor > CDNs. It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the > full documentation is released. So di

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

I¹m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs can¹t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a site/

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would > start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving > someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating > 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?" Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. Tha

RE: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

Way off topic but the Act may had around 2K pagesbut the rules and regulations go with it are at 20K and counting . That is what people are referring to. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of valdis.kletni...@vt.edu Sent: Friday, February 27

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/27/2015 3:21 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server ho

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 11:57 AM, Mel Beckman wrote: > It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to provide you with X Mbps if that > was advertised as "UP TO x Mbps" (which is exactly how every > broadband provider advertises its service -- check your contract). > We're not talking about the Internet's capacity he

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > Chris, > > "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the > 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to > carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly > certain that WoW (or whateve

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Folks, Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for troub

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for television during the time of the "fairness doctrine". In particular, these people *expect* the FCC to take a page from the IRS and start putting up roadblock

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Chris, "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc tha

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." > > Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having > a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right? the

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Hardened carrier grade Ethernet gear appeared quite a time after PON gear did and until we got gear that could be deployed in cabinets the cost of the fiber plant being back hauled to the CO was much more expensive. Google decided to do GPON purely because of cost, they really wanted to do Active

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'll move on. I'm sorry you're not interested in reasonable discussion. -mel beckman > On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:01 PM, "William Herrin" wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're >> hand-waving now. I clea

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, "50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes." Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 09:40 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > If people want a different ratio of up to downlink speed it could > certainly be done. ADSL is by definition asymmetric. We also sold > SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were generally > businesses. See G.SHDSL if you want a s

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 02:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? Why not 25/25? 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I ca

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're > hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum > bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time." Fine. You changed "whenever I deman

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

"My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of s

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Folks, Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-gra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to "broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor CDNs. It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full documentation is released. FWIW, -a [*] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Dail

Re: Mobile/Cell multipoint latency monitoring

http://www.netforecast.com has a product that may work for you. jeff cornejo blue ridge internetworks 321 east main st • suite 200 charlottesville va 22902 434.817.0707 x 2001 www.briworks.com Central Virginia’s technology authority sinc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

'"Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do.' That's simply not a realistic definition. There's no way to determine what a consumer will want to do before they sign up for the service. For that matter, it's impossible to determine what a customer will want 2 years after they've signed.

reachability to AS3215 / AS5511

Looking for a contact at orange 3215 / opentransit 5511 to resolve some reachability/blackhole issues for clients originating at 3215 reaching us at 46562. Please contact me off-list.

Mobile/Cell multipoint latency monitoring

Hello Nanog, I'm currently tasked with finding a solution that will either monitor or report on internet latency to our mobile game servers from various points worldwide but using cellular networks. Does anyone know of any provider who does this?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:32:38 +, William Waites said: > for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing > doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a server) is on > good, symmetric bandwidth. There's no need for good symmetric bandwidth. There's just need for

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level. If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service than is currently available in most neighborhoods. There are so many use cases fo

Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:12:21 +, Mel Beckman said: > Two pages? Read the news, man. It's been widely reported that the actual > Order runs to over 300 pages! It was also "widely reported" that the Affordable Care Act was 20,000 pages, when in fact it was about 1,900. pgp4vEsJYoKjH.pgp Desc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..." As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstrea

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Brim wrote: > Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not I mean a legal site. Sigh.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: > On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote: >> >> What's a "lawful" web site? >> > Now *there* is a $64,000 question. Even more interesting is, "Who gets to > decide day to day the answer to that question?" :) Common term in mobile operat

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Bill, I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time." Every house can't use its 200 amps at the same time, which happens when everyone tur

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 27/02/2015 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms wrote: I have to take exception to your example. Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their c

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers > only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger > customer base nor the behavior of the global network. Hi Scott, "Normal" is whatever the

Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

Lamar, Two pages? Read the news, man. It's been widely reported that the actual Order runs to over 300 pages! http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382 You say you haven't read the actual R&O. Nobody in the public sector, or even in Congress AFAIK, has read it. The Order's 300-

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address > the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps > whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world > essential practice of oversubscription. You changed "whenever I d

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Bill, The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger customer base nor the behavior of the global network. I work with hundreds of access providers in North America, the Caribbean, and Europe so

  1   2   >