Re: $1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
On 3/24/12 01:32 , George Bonser wrote: If they could armor the cable sufficiently perhaps they could drill the straigh line path through the Earth's crust (mantle and outer core) and do London-Tokyo in less than 10,000km. Current record depth of a borehole is under 12,500 meters which is a bit short of the goal. Aled I suggested this once when it was decided that the latency from California to the UK was too high and that I should reduce it. The company wouldn't go for it, though. Bandwidth delay product has undone many a well laid plan. G
Re: $1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
Hey $1.5Bn would get you less than half of Spotify right now, so it seems like a good deal. -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: $1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
On 24/03/2012 00:32, George Bonser wrote: I suggested this once when it was decided that the latency from California to the UK was too high and that I should reduce it. The company wouldn't go for it, though. I assume they had a practical alternative to your proposition? Perhaps making light go faster? Nick
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long. Marcel Plug marcelp...@gmail.com wrote: This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right way.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars -Marcel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said: The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is considered above average, and any result below is considered below average. That's the national definition of broadband that we're stuck with. To show how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute percent of people with access to residential broadband, they do it on a per-county basis - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the entire county counts.
Re: $1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Marshall Eubanks marshall.euba...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:16:59 -0700, George Herbert said: The physics is not conducive to improving the situation a lot. There's probably $1.5 billion in the ground already in neutrino detectors; the total combined detector bit rate is pretty poor. One experiment looking at neutrinos coming off the Fermilab accelerator had 473 million accelerator pulses with under 1.1 million detected neutrinos. Note that each pulse was probably millions or even billions of neutrinos, so the detection rate was even worse than you'd think. I saw a statistic that every second, 50 trillion neutrinos pass through your body. And the number that will interact is well into the single digits. Small detection numbers are not, per se, fatal to communication. What fraction of the photons generated by a GPS satellite are captured by your phone? Much higher fraction than with neutrinos. Remember their MFPs are measured in light-years... Actually, at the energy they used it's more like 0.1 light seconds. The neutrino interaction rate increases with neutrino energy, and sea water makes a good neutrino detector. You could, for a billion dollars, do a LOT better than they did. On the detector end, sure. On the transmitter end, it's just not a well collimated beam due to physics, and no matter how hard you try the generation of neutrinos is a low-efficiency process. The beam width was 2 meters after 1 km, equivalent to ~12 km after 1 Earth radius. The beam can be made tighter by going to higher energy and using more or better post collision focusing magnets. The KM3NeT detector in the Mediterranean will be more sensitive, 3 km across and will cost order 200 million euros. With better magnets, the existing beam could be made to be the size of that detector at 1 Earth radius. So, existing technology could certainly communicate across the Atlantic or the Pacific. The real question, again, would be what it would take to get the bit rate up. Regards Marshall By the way, here is the original paper : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847v1.pdf Yep. I meant to include the URL but forgot. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long. Marcel Plug marcelp...@gmail.com wrote: This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right way.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars -Marcel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said: The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is considered above average, and any result below is considered below average. That's the national definition of broadband that we're stuck with. To show how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute percent of people with access to residential broadband, they do it on a per-county basis - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the entire county counts.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
Jimmy Hess wrote: The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing a fiber. Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols. Hm... i'm thinking one transceiver might malfunction and get stuck/frozen in the transmitting pulse state, thus making collision avoidance impossible, kind of like a shorted NIC on a shared bus topology LAN, if just one subscriber's equipment happens to have the right kind of failure, and that's neglecting the possibility of intentional attack. That is a real problem harming healthy development of broadband Internet. Passive optically-shared fiber networks don't sound so hot in that case. Worse, as optical fibers are so cheap these days, SS (single star) costs less than PON, because PON requires more complicated wiring. Even worse, if people are deceived to recognize PON cheaper than SS, it is impossible to have optical Internet in sparsely populated area where optical Internet with SS is possible. It can be said that PON was promoted by ILECs only to keep their monopoly. Masataka Ohta
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
For those who didn't Google it. http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en/knowledge-center/case-studies/amsterdam-city-fiber-project-analysis -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long. Marcel Plug marcelp...@gmail.com wrote: This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right way.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars -Marcel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said: The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is considered above average, and any result below is considered below average. That's the national definition of broadband that we're stuck with. To show how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute percent of people with access to residential broadband, they do it on a per-county basis - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the entire county counts.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in which it has been funded. I suggest you look into USF in more detail. Owen On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Joseph Snyder wrote: Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long. Marcel Plug marcelp...@gmail.com wrote: This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right way.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars -Marcel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said: The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is considered above average, and any result below is considered below average. That's the national definition of broadband that we're stuck with. To show how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute percent of people with access to residential broadband, they do it on a per-county basis - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the entire county counts.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
USF is more of a free for all get ISPs to build in 80% of the locations that nobody would build in their right mind vs a mini monopoly model for l2 that I equate this with. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in which it has been funded. I suggest you look into USF in more detail. Owen On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Joseph Snyder wrote: Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Joseph Snyder joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote: Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long. Marcel Plug marcelp...@gmail.com wrote: This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right way.. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars -Marcel On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said: The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is considered above average, and any result below is considered below average. That's the national definition of broadband that we're stuck with. To show how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute percent of people with access to residential broadband, they do it on a per-county basis - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the entire county counts.
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC, basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld applying unbundling rules. Frank -Original Message- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:47 PM To: John T. Yocum Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity) On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum john.yo...@fluidhosting.com wrote: VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain? Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a service, and the price of copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want it someday? Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which doesn't likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS delivery installed for free as a cheaper alternative to POTS delivery. -- -JH
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say If you don't build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money. The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again. Owen On Mar 24, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC, basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld applying unbundling rules. Frank -Original Message- From: Jimmy Hess [mailto:mysi...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:47 PM To: John T. Yocum Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity) On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum john.yo...@fluidhosting.com wrote: VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain? Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a service, and the price of copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want it someday? Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which doesn't likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS delivery installed for free as a cheaper alternative to POTS delivery. -- -JH
is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
Reports from around the country are that traceroutes through sbcglobal (in Austin, Houston and NJ) are failing with timeout to havanatimes.org -- yet when we go in through TOR or Comcast or using overseas services, their routing is just fine. What gives?
RE: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
It's easy to ridicule the outliers, but the reality is that without USF the majority of rural America that has Internet connectivity today wouldn't be online. Yes, the price-cap carriers didn't do much in rural America, but that's because there was little economic incentive to do so. Rate-of-return carriers had the incentive to invest to earn a return, and they did that. Many of the independents serve small communities and there is an element of local pride in providing good service, and coops seek to serve their members well, and do the same thing. BTW, the FCC in their recent USF/ICC rulings has put a cap on the funding per customer per year to $5K, so you won't see any more of the examples listed in the Connected Planet article. Frank -Original Message- From: Faisal Imtiaz [mailto:fai...@snappydsl.net] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 12:54 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc So do a quick research on USF and see who gets paid from it... Please don't read this if you have just eaten.. you might puke .. http://connectedplanetonline.com/commentary/real-story-usf-data-071510/ http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/2011usf/Response toQuestion1.pdf If you have more time.. read these for your enjoyment.. http://energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=8737 Then one can understand how come folks like Century Tel can gobble up Qwest, Savvis, Sprint, and a few others rather quickly !!! I believe the current USF contribution is about 19% !!! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 3/23/2012 1:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called 'broadband' is a joke and a scam. randy
RE: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
There's more than just the cost of fiber -- there's also the cost of locating and taxes. Any maintenance if there's cuts and the costs if you need to move the fiber for a project. I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark fiber options for a potential opportunity, but you have to remind yourself don't have a *right* to know where *private* fiber is. It's not just the physical property, the lack of documentation is a competitive advantage. Frank -Original Message- From: Luke S. Crawford [mailto:l...@prgmr.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:59 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al) snip I'm trying to do just that right now, actually. 55 s. market to 250 Stockton in San Jose. I dono if it's five thousand feet, but it's not twice that. The cheapest fiber pair I can rent from someone else I've found is $5K/month; the cheapest build-out I've found is $150K, so even if I'm only using one pair in that, if I can get money at anything like a reasonable interest rate, if I plan on sticking around more than 5 years it makes sense to lay new fiber. Which is weird, as this is probably one of the densest masses of existing fiber in the world, going from a 'center of the universe' data center to a minor data center. snip The big problem here, I think, is that it's quite difficult to figure out who has what fiber where, and even once you know who owns it, to find out who to talk to at a company that might know what 'dark fiber' is, much less know how much they might rent it to you for. I spent several hours last month on the phone with XO and I kept getting redirected to someone trying to sell me a T1. I've got other projects right now, but once I'm done with that, I'm going to be spending a bunch of time pestering the PUC and other people that might know who owns fiber between here and there. snip But from the amount of time it takes to just find someone at those companies that even knows what dark fiber is? I think I might be better off putting in the effort to do whatever regulatory red tape is required to own fiber in the ground. So yeah; really? in my corner of the world, the problem is the same problem you see everywhere else in this industry. Any useful information is guarded jealously. In this case, where does the fiber run? I mean, I have pretty good maps of the Santa Clara municipal fiber network; but the private networks are impossible.
RE: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban? In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish they could do -- serve the most profitable customers. Frank -Original Message- From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:52 PM To: NANOG Subject: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc) snip Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John. The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate... offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer can light up each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer layer 2 or 3 service at all. High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it right. As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint. See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/ As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 -- or even layer 2, where the municipality supplies (matching) ONTs, and services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data service. I believe Google agrees with me. :-) Cheers, -- jra Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
4 te-9-1-ur01.northeast.fl.jacksvil.comcast.net (68.86.168.61) 914.785 ms 916.728 ms 917.681 ms 5 te-0-5-0-0-ar02.southside.fl.jacksvil.comcast.net (68.86.168.69) 1018.016 ms .482 ms * 6 te-1-1-0-1-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.95.189) 1324.773 ms 852.297 ms 523.514 ms 7 pos-1-15-0-0-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.197) 554.344 ms 571.771 ms 573.842 ms 8 pos-4-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.88.229) 574.285 ms 577.734 ms 579.187 ms 9 pos-0-3-0-0-pe01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.142) 578.127 ms 578.586 ms 588.765 ms 10 80.150.169.197 (80.150.169.197) 594.101 ms 594.680 ms 595.115 ms 11 f-ed3-i.F.DE.NET.DTAG.DE (62.154.14.190) 598.569 ms * * 12 xe-3-0-1.atuin.as6724.net (62.157.249.198) 446.536 ms 907.048 ms 1233.020 ms 13 xe-10-3-0.morla.as6724.net (81.169.144.33) 1239.439 ms 1273.024 ms 1274.223 ms 14 te4-2.fiddlersriddle.as6724.net (81.169.144.34) 1275.161 ms 1275.986 ms 1276.924 ms 15 w9c.rzone.de (81.169.145.156) 1277.882 ms 1279.583 ms 1297.408 ms I've never had Denver jump before Atlanta but it seems your issue is overseas in Europe and not Cuba. -- --C The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them. - Sir William Clayton
RE: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
From my own experience in my $DAYJOB, separating capital decisions at the L1 and L2 layers would end up adding cost. As mentioned elsewhere, GPON and similar shared medium approaches do not lend themselves well to structural separation. The most practical approach is dark fiber runs from the customer to as few centralized places as possible. The CLEC would co-locate their equipment at those centralized places. The CLEC is then free to use ActiveE, GPON, whatever-the-next-gen-of-PON. Structural separation works best when the cost to build to a customer are roughly the same. Wherever there's significant disparaties, those will be exploited and people will overbuild to the highest-margin/lowest cost customers to avoid the averaged cost of L1 network. Frank -Original Message- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 9:28 AM To: Masataka Ohta Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc) snip It doesn't promote local monopoly if you don't allow the L1 company to provide L2+ services. If the L1 company is required to be independent of and treat all L2+ services companies equally, then, the ILEC, CLEC, et. all have the same cost per customer. Owen
Re: is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
Again, the common element in the timeouts seem to be sbcglobal _not_ comcast. $ traceroute havanatimes.org traceroute to havanatimes.org (81.169.145.156), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets ... 3 108-85-132-3.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (108.85.132.3) 27.394 ms 23.129 ms 23.454 ms 4 75.8.128.82 (75.8.128.82) 24.498 ms * * 5 75.8.128.26 (75.8.128.26) 26.134 ms 23.820 ms 23.206 ms 6 * * * 7 12.83.68.141 (12.83.68.141) 23.601 ms 22.763 ms 23.122 ms 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * ... and this just in, from Houston. traceroute to havanatimes.org (81.169.145.156), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets [skipping my internal firewalls] 3 99-116-244-2.lightspeed.hstntx.sbcglobal.net (99.116.244.2) 15.049 ms 13.259 ms 15.272 ms 4 * 71.144.128.132 (71.144.128.132) 12.526 ms 13.189 ms 5 * * * 6 12.83.36.1 (12.83.36.1) 14.793 ms 12.83.86.93 (12.83.86.93) 12.256 ms 10.375 ms 7 * * * 8 * * * 9 * * * 10 * * * ... from the same site in Houston, but going through Comcast: It's fine from Comcast in Houston. 3 te-5-6-ur01.royalton.tx.houston.comcast.net (68.85.250.97) 8.520 ms 9.263 ms 7.439 ms [skipping a zillion internal comcast hops] 11 80.150.169.197 (80.150.169.197) 52.592 ms 58.171 ms 61.386 ms 12 f-ed3-i.F.DE.NET.DTAG.DE (62.154.14.190) 148.515 ms 198.582 ms 134.282 ms 13 xe-3-0-1.atuin.as6724.net (62.157.249.198) 135.565 ms 135.564 ms 135.349 ms 14 xe-10-3-0.morla.as6724.net (81.169.144.33) 136.368 ms 137.703 ms 136.021 ms 15 te4-2.fiddlersriddle.as6724.net (81.169.144.34) 138.861 ms 137.925 ms 139.025 ms 16 w9c.rzone.de (81.169.145.156) 139.272 ms 138.359 ms 140.591 ms Friends in Alaska and NJ can get through (but not if they use sbcglobal routers as their first hop). Fargo, ND times out as well. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 2:41 PM, C. A. Fillekes cfille...@gmail.com wrote: Reports from around the country are that traceroutes through sbcglobal (in Austin, Houston and NJ) are failing with timeout to havanatimes.org -- yet when we go in through TOR or Comcast or using overseas services, their routing is just fine. What gives?
Re: is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
From this location it looks aweful... and I am on a sbcglobal line. Console traceroute -a havanatimes.org ...[INTERNAL]... 3 [AS0] adsl-99-181-143-254.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net (99.181.143.254) 19.510 ms 27.116 ms 19.387 ms 4 [AS7132] dist2-vlan60.klmzmi.ameritech.net (67.36.55.243) 19.482 ms 18.178 ms 19.939 ms 5 [AS7132] bb2-10g4-0.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net (151.164.38.108) 19.897 ms 26.879 ms 19.883 ms 6 * * * ... It stops there not even a ping. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:41:01PM -0500, C. A. Fillekes wrote: Reports from around the country are that traceroutes through sbcglobal (in Austin, Houston and NJ) are failing with timeout to havanatimes.org -- yet when we go in through TOR or Comcast or using overseas services, their routing is just fine. What gives? -- ;s =;
Re: is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
from paris :) rair.psg.com:/Users/randy traceroute -a havanatimes.org traceroute to havanatimes.org (81.169.145.156), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets 1 [AS8151] 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 37.716 ms 79.322 ms 1.435 ms 2 * * * 3 * * * 4 * * * 5 * [AS12670] reverse.completel.net (213.244.0.225) 28.126 ms 28.912 ms 6 [AS12670] reverse.completel.net (213.244.0.226) 37.078 ms 37.996 ms 30.224 ms 7 [AS12670] reverse.completel.net (213.244.0.230) 33.167 ms 39.857 ms 31.280 ms 8 [AS12670] reverse.completel.net (213.244.0.242) 72.771 ms 53.188 ms 43.874 ms 9 [AS1299] prs-b6-link.telia.net (213.248.93.41) 46.922 ms 48.623 ms 45.503 ms 10 [AS1299] prs-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.246.56) 39.203 ms [AS1299] prs-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.246.54) 50.166 ms [AS1299] prs-bb2-link.telia.net (80.91.246.56) 45.533 ms 11 [AS1299] ffm-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.245.100) 73.785 ms [AS1299] ffm-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.245.102) 57.945 ms [AS1299] ffm-bb1-link.telia.net (80.91.245.100) 55.093 ms 12 [AS1299] ffm-b7-link.telia.net (80.91.254.93) 75.182 ms [AS1299] ffm-b7-link.telia.net (80.91.247.75) 47.499 ms [AS1299] ffm-b7-link.telia.net (80.91.254.253) 48.189 ms 13 [AS1299] xe-10-2-0.morla.as6724.net (213.248.94.78) 52.179 ms 48.434 ms 105.630 ms 14 [AS6724] te4-2.fiddlersriddle.as6724.net (81.169.144.34) 83.134 ms 60.910 ms 60.176 ms 15 [AS6724] w9c.rzone.de (81.169.145.156) 57.661 ms 67.233 ms 77.722 ms
Re: is sbcglobal throttling Cuban traffic?
81.169.144 belongs to a German company based in Berlin :) Regards, Jeff On Mar 24, 2012, at 13:39, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 81.169.145.156
why is sbcglobal throttling havanatimes.org ?
Curious that so many routers owned by the same US company would all be timing out on havanatimes.org with the server located in a former eastern bloc nation. Oh well, it's back now. Cold war over. On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Tantsura jeff.tants...@ericsson.com wrote: 81.169.144 belongs to a German company based in Berlin :) Regards, Jeff On Mar 24, 2012, at 13:39, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 81.169.145.156
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:42:36PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark fiber options for a potential opportunity, but you have to remind yourself don't have a *right* to know where *private* fiber is. It's not just the physical property, the lack of documentation is a competitive advantage. Considering that nearly all of this fiber runs over public right of ways granted by the government (and sometimes through the use of force by the government) it's not really private in the sense that it would be if you bury fiber on land you own, or on land owned by private individuals that have given you the right to run fiber over or through the land through some voluntary exchange of value. The public right of ways are created by the government as a public good, and as such, I think the people have a right to know what goes on in them. (Actually, I was talking to a far more experienced friend the other day, and he says that I should be able to contact the PUC and get exactly this data, though often this, too, is somewhat difficult, so when I re-start this project in a few months, that's the direction I am going to attack first.) Legal issues aside, treating a lack of documentation as a competitive advantage makes any transaction vastly less efficient when you consider both parties. I don't do business that way, and when I have a choice? I don't do business with companies that do. Yes, it is legal, and I am not suggesting that should change. But it's still an asshole move that (from a perspective that considers both parties) destroys value. I talked to the silicon valley power people (the operators of the Santa Clara municipal fiber network) and they gave me a cost per mile and a very detailed map (down to what side of the street the fiber is on) - they wouldn't let me have a copy of the map that actually documented the 'pull boxes', but still, it was enough information that I could look at a building and tell pretty quickly if I was wasting their time or not by getting a quote. Talking to anyone else? no maps (or ridiculously vague maps) and no cost per mile. I have to pick two endpoints and ask how much. In my case, the endpoints depend almost entirely on how much it costs, this means I waste a whole lot of salesperson time, and my own time. It's a vastly less efficient way to do business.
