Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
At least Microsoft would get heat for unsolicited downloads. Why does Microsoft (allegedly) think they can download (unwanted or at least unsolicited) software to unsuspecting users computer, just to upsell them, at our expense? 20Gigs per household is a lot of data across a market. If it was metered, there would be at least some accountability. > On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:56 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: >> Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by >> you or not. > > You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they > got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 > machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them? signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On Saturday, January 9, 2016, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android > phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least > 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so > quick to dismiss that there's no difference. > > Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, > for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to > accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or > above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at > 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). > Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of > these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough > stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be > automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, > meaning, it might even go to 240p). > > Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results > in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to > have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the > connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for > 480p and the DVD quality. > > C. > > To disabuse anyone on this list about how video is treated in mobile, Page 11 has a good reality check on how every major mobile provider in the usa actively adjusts video https://www3.cs.stonybrook.edu/~phillipa/papers/traffic-diff_imc15.pdf Given that world, my opinion is stepping down abr is the least intrusive method, verses active transcoding Which modifies a copywrited work between origin and consumer. According to this tweet, "partners" control the bitrate to avoid exercising abr , and thus no buffering https://twitter.com/slidefuse/status/685373665882599424 So, that is a reasonable e2e approach given the world of mobile video Just talking from an engineering perspective. The alternative is that there is quiet arms race between access providers and video providers as described in the first link. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett > > wrote: > > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can > notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice > the buffering or larger bills? > > > > > > > > > > - > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > > > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > > > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks > wrote: > >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and > whether > >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... > >> > >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually > doing > >> doesn't match what they said it was... > >> > >> > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies > >> > >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, > >> or why they're giving him a hard time. > >> > >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere > said. "Why > >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" > >> > >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie > >> > >> /me makes popcorn > > > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > > record straight, once and for all. > > > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > > > Here's my comment on > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > > > 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» > > > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > > > >> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 > > ... > > > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On > optimizes video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still > delivering DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more > reliable streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for > almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch > up to three times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile > has put customers in total control wit
Re: SMS gateways
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 11:23:59PM -, John Levine wrote: > In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: > >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: > >http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > > > >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, > >needing a reboot every few months, > >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. > > It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a > 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off > their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is > already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. > > What do you plan to do instead next year? I last purchased a USB "3G modem" for around $12 including shipping which supports SMS. it doesn't need to use the 3G part for data though, just for the control channel. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Unlocked-ZTE-MF110-3G-850-1900-2100-Mhz-GSM-USB-Mobile-Broadband-Modem-/121822901176 There are cheaper ones to be had, but this isn't exactly something that is a budget breaker. Get a good provider and life will be just fine for you. I have a T-Mobile SIM in mine and they don't charge for most international texts like other carriers so makes a perfect SMS device. (Looks like HSPA+ LTE ones can be had around $40 without putting much effort into it). The biggsest problem I had was setting the AT command to make it default to the right mode vs using usbmodeswitch in Linux, but mostly because this was the first device I used like this in over a decade myself. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
Comcast uses a standardized protocol called IPDR for their accounting and if they're still using the same software collector that they were a few years ago it was independently verified for accuracy. IPDR had been part of the DOCSIS protocol for nearly a decade and is publicly documented. Now, what (if anything) they choose to zero rate or otherwise manipulate I can't speak on, but the collection of the usage is well understood, independent of the CPE, and extremely accurate. On Jan 9, 2016 12:05 PM, "Robert Webb" wrote: > Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even > though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged > given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. > In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will > never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current > players. > > There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is > going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, > etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility > will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. > > Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, > but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do > not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly > how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am > not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult > to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. > > (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. > But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these > days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I > certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me > for review.) > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: > >> The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >> consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >> industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous >> pricing. >> There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any >> certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start >> now? >> >> (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry >> makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) >> >> - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com >> >> Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com >> >> - Original Message - >> >> From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" < >> na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" < >> nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: >> Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. >> The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as >> the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary >> secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the >> ISP actually pays for regarding bits! >> Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for >> measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. >> Robert Webb >> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett >> wrote: >> >>> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to >>> provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly >>> isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for >>> water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >>> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their >>> usage costs? >>> >>> - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com >>> >> >> >> > >
Re: SMS gateways
In article <006501d14b31$7c478e40$74d6aac0$@iname.com> you write: >Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: >http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms > >Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, >needing a reboot every few months, >but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. It looked interesting until I got to the part where it says it uses a 2G GSM modem. AT&T has said quite firmly that they will turn off their 2G network in 2017, and press reports say that T-Mobile is already turning off 2G in favor of LTE. What do you plan to do instead next year?
RE: SMS gateways
Surprised no one has mentioned the Multimodem iSMS: http://www.multitech.com/brands/multimodem-isms Been using it for 5+ years -- first three years the code wasn't stable, needing a reboot every few months, but the latest code has been stable for 2+ years. Frank -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of David Hubbard Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2016 1:36 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: SMS gateways Hey all, was curious if anyone has opinions on the FoxBox vs SMS Eagle boxes for sending SMS alerts directly to the cell network? http://www.smsfoxbox.it/en/foxbox-iq.html/ http://www.smseagle.eu/store/en/devices/1-sms-eagle.html Any alternative options would be appreciated too. I saw Microcom’s iSMS modem mentioned in the list archives but it’s only 2G so likely won’t be viable much longer. The other question, given the fact that they’re both GSM-based, is whether or not you know if AT&T or T-Mobile have cheap ‘machine’ plans for use by these types of devices. We have all of our OpenGear out of band console servers on Verizon and they have these special ‘machine’ plans for $10/mo with very limited bandwidth, so that has allowed us to deploy a bunch of them without worrying about a huge phone bill. Thanks, David
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
This is not a lossless 480p we're talking about, and most Android phones have been through quite a few generations of having at least 720p, if not 1080p or 1440p, and 5" displays. I wouldn't at all be so quick to dismiss that there's no difference. Also, according to http://www.lighterra.com/papers/videoencodingh264/, for a high-quality 480p, you're supposed to have a 2.5Mbps link to accommodate a 1.6Mbps stream; and a few providers already stream at or above 1.5Mbps for 480p, including BBC at 1500, ESPN at 2000, iTunes at 1500 and Netflix at 1050 or 1750 (1050 results in lower quality 480p). Being throttled at 1.5Mbps would mean that 480p video from any of these provides, if forced at 480p, would either result in just enough stuttering or buffering issues to ruin the experience, or will be automatically downgraded to 360p (which is still 1400 for ESPN, meaning, it might even go to 240p). Moreover, I have a feeling that on HSPA+ their new throttling results in below 480p resolution, because the network is no longer afforded to have the bursts to compensate for the occasional variability of the connection. (Google Galaxy Nexus is HSPA+ and 720p.) So much for 480p and the DVD quality. C. On 8 January 2016 at 20:25, Mike Hammett wrote: > I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can > notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the > buffering or larger bills? > > > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > To: "Valdis Kletnieks" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. > > On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks wrote: >> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether >> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... >> >> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing >> doesn't match what they said it was... >> >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies >> >> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, >> or why they're giving him a hard time. >> >> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. >> "Why >> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" >> >> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie >> >> /me makes popcorn > > I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the > record straight, once and for all. > > T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! > > Here's my comment on > https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya > > 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go > at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra > step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» > > I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me > make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! > > https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm > >> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 > ... > >> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes >> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering >> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable >> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all >> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three >> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put >> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On >> for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer >> choice. > > Here it is again, the relevant bits: > >> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can >> watch up to three times more video from their data plan > > Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! > > HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! > > Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. > Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB > to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't > include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) > > Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: > > https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s > > Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching > 12% more video. > > It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but > that's most certainly what was meant. > > Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. [Comcast meter Q]
On 1/9/16, 12:04 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Robert Webb" wrote: >Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, >but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I >do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe >exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards >usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even >more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable >nature. Since my day job is at Comcast and part of that job is ensuring that the usage meter is technically accurate I figured I would chime in. A few bits of information that may be helpful follow below. **I am happy to answer any questions you or others have.** And I have also copied our independent auditor should there be questions for his firm. 1 - Comcast does byte counting via the IPDR standard (IP Detail Records). I would think any other DOCSIS-based network that performs byte counting would also use IPDR (and all the ones of which I am aware do so). You can find some more information about the IPDR specification here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Protocol_Detail_Record https://www.incognito.com/tips-and-tutorials/faq-bandwidth-monitoring-with- ipdr/ http://www.dslreports.com/r0/download/1603814~d44a19780841cdc79abf840b6066d 52d/ipdr-usage-counters.pdf http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/specdocs/CM-SP-OSSIv3.0-I14-110 210.pdf 2 - Comcast first made mention of the use of IPDR in a 2008 FCC filing, as part of a deployment of a protocol-agnostic congestion management system. See these documents: http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057 3 - Comcast engaged a 3rd party auditor called NetForecast (http://www.netforecast.com/) to regularly, independently audit the accuracy of our usage meter. We usually announce those audits on our Network Management page (ex: http://networkmanagement.xfinity.com/index.php/8-network-management-news/55 -2015-comcast-usage-meter-accuracy-report) and NetForecast publishes these reports on their website. See the following documents: - First accuracy report, 2009: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy_Original.pdf - Second accuracy report, 2010: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NFR5101_Comcast_Usage _Meter_Accuracy.pdf - Third accuracy report, 2014: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NFR5116_Comcast_Meter _Accuracy_Report.pdf - Fourth accuracy report, 2015: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5120_Fourth_Comcas t_Meter_Accuracy_Validation_Report.pdf - ISP best practice report: http://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NFR5119_General_ISP_D ata_Usage_Meter_Specification.pdf 4 - In terms of what is counted, all Internet traffic is counted (what is now known as Title-II traffic). Title-VI video traffic and Xfinity Voice traffic, which may use the IP protocol but are not Internet services, are not counted. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, Jason
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On Sat, 09 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600, Mike Hammett said: > Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by > you or not. You want to be the one explaining to your customer that the reason they got charged for 20G of unexpected transfer was because their 3 Windows 8 machines each downloaded Windows 10 without telling them? pgpSDkLogGUP1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
In article <1725530149.7756.1452359589375.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write: >Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by >you or not. As should be obvious to people on NANOG, of all places, mobile networks and fixed networks are different. On a mobile network, every bit of infrastructure you use other than your phone is shared and tends to be heavily used. Metered usage makes economic sense, although it's well documented that users hate it and would rather pay for a fixed bundle even if on average metered would be cheaper. On fixed networks, a significant chunk is unshared (such as the wire to your house) and while there may be hotspots, there tends to be a lot of slack capacity within the network. That means that fixed network traffic outside of peak times literally costs the network nothing. >I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. >I suppose they should upon >reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. Now you have. When I was municipal water commissioner, one of our annual tasks was to buy new meters to swap for the oldest ones. Water meters have a lot of moving parts and when they get old, they tend to underreport usage. R's, John
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
So you are all for supporting having to pay for data the bloatware programs, installed by most all providers, which most consumers do not want or use? When providers start putting out equipment that has the pure phone OS installed, not the bloatware laden crap that is sold today, then I might agree with you a bit more. But we all know from the history of providers that they will never provide a reasonable per byte cost. Everywhere I have lived, providers will come out and replace meters. Some do it better then others, especially if you are seeing anomalies in usage. In the case of normal utilities though, you can pretty much judge your usage. However with internet based per byte billing, one never knows what is going on under the hood of the device in places where the user has zero access to. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:12:16 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not. I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now? (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
Bytes uploaded and\or downloaded. That's all that should matter. Initiated by you or not. I have never seen or heard of any utility meters being replaced or calibrated. I suppose they should upon reasonable demand, but I've never seen it regularly done anywhere. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 11:04:05 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the >consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, >industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or >ridiculous pricing. > > There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are >any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so >why start now? > > > (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the >industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > > - Original Message - > >From: "Robert Webb" > To: "Mike Hammett" > Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" > Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM > Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the >fan. > > The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is >as the > providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. >proprietary > secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what >the ISP > actually pays for regarding bits! > > Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" >for > measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. > > Robert Webb > > On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) > Mike Hammett wrote: >> My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >>to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >>certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >>variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. >> >> Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >>their usage costs? >> >> >> - >> Mike Hammett >> Intelligent Computing Solutions >> http://www.ics-il.com > >
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
Unfortunately when it comes to "competition" in the wireless world, even though there are multiple providers, the consumer will always be gouged given the attitude of today's providers to just follow what the other does. In my opinion, kind of a in the public eye form of collusion. So there will never be a true competition based market in the wireless given the current players. There should be certifications for measurement is that is what my bill is going to be based on as a consumer. My power meter, gas meter, water meter, etc. get replaced every so often for calibration and the particular utility will come out and swap or test on site if I think there is an issue. Unfortunately, providers like Comcast, yes, I know they aren't wireless, but their usage meter is a joke and a proprietary based joke at that. I do not think I have ever seen anyone from Comcast willing to describe exactly how their meter works and what is and is not counted towards usage. I am not a wireless expert, but my guess is that it would be even more difficult to accurately track usage on wireless given the portable nature. (In my area, luckily, my landline ISP doesn't charge or have caps either. But my wireless carrier has caps. And given the data hungry phones these days in which a lot of the data cannot be controlled by the user, then I certainly want the technical details of the usage calculation open to me for review.) Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:46:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now? (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
The cost to the provider is irrelevant to the consumer. Cost to the consumer is all the consumer should be concerned with. Competition, industry and media would serve as the barometer to sensible or ridiculous pricing. There are a myriad of ways to measure usage. I'm not sure there are any certifications for any other billing relating to the Internet, so why start now? (My ISP doesn't charge for usage and I don't intend to until the industry makes that shift. I'm just debating this side.) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Robert Webb" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:37:23 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: > My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but >to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig >certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay >variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. > > Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what >their usage costs? > > > - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
The normal consumer has no way to correlate what the "real" cost is as the providers keep their "costs" for bandwidth, transit, etc. proprietary secrets and always lie to the consumer and muddy the picture of what the ISP actually pays for regarding bits! Additionally, until there can be proper tools that are "certified" for measuring usage, then usage based billing will never be viable. Robert Webb On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 10:11:29 -0600 (CST) Mike Hammett wrote: My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
My point on usage based billing isn't meant to stifle anything, but to provide equitable service to everyone at a fair price. $10/gig certainly isn't a fair price for almost any network. People pay variable rates for water, electricity, gas, food, etc., etc. Is it necessarily a bad thing if people stop to think about what their usage costs? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Jeremy Austin" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 10:01:47 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:11:51AM -0800, Hugo Slabbert wrote: > ...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile > by lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". It's not just video. Per comments on Techdirt, this also affects other traffic being transmitted via HTTPS, if that traffic is sufficiently large and/or persists for a sufficient period of time. ---rsk
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse > to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have > shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based > on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) I'm tempted to make an analogy to health care, insurance, and universal coverage, but I'll abstain. Usage based billing alters the typical hockey stick graph: the 10% of users using 80% of the bandwidth are otherwise subsidized by the long tail. As an ISP, usage-based billing is more sensible, because I would no longer have to stress about oversubscription ratios and keeping the long tail happy. But usage-based models are more stressful for the consumer; I think I disagree that it's the best model for everybody. Let me be a consumer advocate for a moment. One of the reasons consumers are averse to usage-based billing is that the tech industry has not put good tools into their hands. While it is possible to disable automatic updates, set Windows 10's network settings to "metered", and micromanage your bandwidth, in general: The Internet (from the non-eyeball side) is designed around a free-feeding usage model. Can you imagine if the App store of your choice showed two prices, one for the app and one for the download? The permission-based model on Android would have requests like, "This app is likely to cost you $4/week. Is this OK?" I don't know all the reasons that satellite provider Starband shut down, but that was a usage-based billing market; and it would never have been a 'reasonable' $/gig. I'm working to step into the hole they left, and you're right that customers don't want a usage-based model to replace it. In addition, let's say I know of an ISP that makes 10% of its revenue from overage charges. Moving to a purely usage-based model would lower ACR, as it would have to charge a more reasonable price/gig; that top 10% of users won't replace the lost revenue. So even providers may have little incentive to change models, particularly if they have a vested interest in inhibiting the growth of video or usage in general. -- Jeremy Austin
5GHz Wifi [Was: Re: GPON vs. GEPON]
On 9/01/2016 2:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are 2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is. Unfortunately almost all of the Internet of Things (IoT) client devices I have come across or purchased lately are 2.4GHz only: - Belkin Wemo - Airconsole - Sense Sleep Tracker - LIFX - Ninjasphere (now defunct, but this was interesting because these appear to have a 5GHz radio in them but don't have the antenna to support it) The explanation I have been given a few times is that the antenna requirements for 5GHz are just too difficult to achieve in what are often small and low powered devices. We're mostly there with phones and PCs though. Reuben
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
Valid points. The best solution for everybody is the solution most consumers are adverse to, which is usage based billing. Granted, many times the providers have shot themselves in the foot by making the charges punitive instead of based on cost plus margin. Reasonable $/gig for everybody! :-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Alan Buxey" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 4:38:58 AM Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan
Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.
You're assuming that people are only using phones with their SIM - those that use a mifi dongle and thus view content on a tablet or laptop will notice We could rate limit traffic from YouTube to 1.5mbps and let the adaptive streaming knock the steam to 480p bit our users with 100mbit connections might wonder why they cannot view 720p or 1080p - and why spicy they view such content - its like putting back the web and online video services 5 years. Where does it stop? 320x240 ? Bulk data and background update processes are things that could possibly by throttled - after all, that's pretty much what QoS does. Most of my phone data is google play software updates and on woes phone ios and itunes store updates - it doesn't matter if the update ticks along in the background. Audio and video need to be good. alan
Re: GPON vs. GEPON
On 9 January 2016 at 07:45, Josh Reynolds wrote: > You might be surprised... > > > It is hard to be surprised when you have hard numbers. I run a network and unsurprisingly know exactly how much traffic my users cause. That number is currently about 2 Mbit/s peak aggregated per household. Do you need 100 Gbit/s instead of 40 Gbit/s? Yes you do if you carry traffic from more than 20,000 users or perhaps you have 10,000 users but want to plan for expected traffic increase over the next two years. But nobody plans their backbone so it can carry 20-30 Mbit/s aggregated per household. Well if you do, you have no competition, because otherwise someone else will figure out how to run a network at 1/10 the cost of what you do, and you will go out of business. Before someone points out the obvious: That math does not carry over to GPON OLT planning (too few users for the aggregation). You will have higher peak than 64x 2 Mbit/s on your OLT. But still, 2.4 Gbit/s shared among 64 users is currently more than sufficient that nobody is going to see any limits on their download rate, even during peak. And that is with users on 1000 Mbit/s plans. I have no idea what Google did or why. I have a feeling that my own hard earned experiences overrides any hear say on that matter... Of course what I am telling you might also be hear say (although directly from a primary source) so do what you think is best. I am just sharing our experiences in the spirit of this forum. Regards, Baldur