On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 20:58:17 -0700, Matt Corallo said:
> If your goal is to force companies the world over to host domestically, where
> they follow local licensing regimes (yes, including censorship, as well as
> data
> access), itâs highly effective.
You missed the point.
There's a
If your goal is to force companies the world over to host domestically, where
they follow local licensing regimes (yes, including censorship, as well as data
access), it’s highly effective. Even better, it makes users fail to identify
the difference between “google is down because it is
On Wed, 01 Apr 2020 12:47:22 -0700, Matt Corallo said:
> No one suggested it isnât censorship, youâre bating here. Not deploying
> enough international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to
> great avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF
>
On 4/1/20 12:47, Matt Corallo wrote:
No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here.
I think you mean baiting, but perhaps not. ;-)
--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
The cell carriers really want the federal allocation at 3300-3500, which
has amateur as secondary, thus the other pending rulemaking that will kill
some of my amateur-licensed links (and why I’m loathe to move out of 5900
down to 3400 just to have that band go away and the equipment worthless,
There’s a rulemaking in process to open the same spectrum. One might
imagine an extension until that resolves.
This will raise the noise floor on a couple of extremely long distance
links I run on the same frequencies under amateur radio rules, including
one that traverses the length of the SF
Perhaps I'm being cynical, but thank [deity of choice] that the cell
carriers want it made available for this purpose.
Reference: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363451A1.pdf
"...And it would help advance even further our leadership in next
generation wireless technologies, including
Indeed, this does seem like good news under the current situation. It's
good for users, and it's nice PR for both the FCC and the WISPs. But I'm
curious: What do these 33 operators anticipate after the STA expires in 60
days?
Obviously their plans may need to adjust depending on the pandemic
The big announcement is the 6ghz space opening up. This will be big for people
doing p2p links.
Sent from my iCar
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 8:42 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> I missed this announcement last week.
>
>
>
I missed this announcement last week.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-grants-wisps-temporary-59-ghz-spectrum-access-rural-broadband
The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau today granted temporary
spectrum access to 33 wireless Internet service providers serving 330
counties in 29
Thank you for your understanding and your patience and kindness to explain
it to us. We really appreciate it.
We will keep that in mind and won’t ask this kind of questions again.
Thanks again.
Pengxiong
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:59 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> I do understand that you mean well,
I do understand that you mean well, but do realize that interconnection
between the rest of the world and the networks controlled by the Chinese
government is a very, very sensitive and often touchy subject. It's also
generally true that networks aren't going to disclose terms of commercial
Dear Mark, group,
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 03:50:23PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On 31/Mar/20 15:21, Dorian Kim wrote:
> > Unfortunately we don’t have any testing done or experience with RPKI
> > on XE or Classic boxes as we don’t have any deployed outside of OOB
> > infrastructure.
>
> Cherish
Thank you, good to hear a Chicago-specific impression of their routing and
support.
--
Shawn
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020, at 10:16 PM, Josh Hoppes wrote:
> Employer has been using them for transit in Chicago for a while now.
> There was a case where they had a weird detour path through a router
> on
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, at 18:56, William Herrin wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> With so much work shut down, I'm curious how backhoe season is shaping
> up this year? How do the circuit and fiber outage numbers look?
It seems that in France there are alternatives to backhoes (fr: pelleteuse,
jargon:
>
> No one suggested it isn’t censorship,
>
In fact, some replies suggested it’s more commercial actions. We said it's
"likely influenced by commercial decisions", we didn't say censorship is
out of the question. We still think censorship is the possible cause, but
we run out of methods to verify
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:54 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> Sorry we didn’t know this is out of scope. What do you mean by baiting
> questions?
>
This is an operator list. Not an opened research discussion. Take it off
the list.
We are not very familiar with the peer protocol,
>
Then pay an expert
Sorry we didn’t know this is out of scope. What do you mean by baiting
questions? We are not very familiar with the peer protocol, so we don’t
know what questions can be discussed here or not. We are researches, we
just want to dig more to the cause of the slowdown that we observed. And we
thought
No one suggested it isn’t censorship, you’re bating here. Not deploying enough
international capacity is absolutely a form or censorship deployed to great
avail - if international sites load too slow, you can skimp on GF appliances!
Matt
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 12:26, Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> Many
> On Apr 1, 2020, at 04:46 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 31/Mar/20 23:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> From my perspective, anyone born in this century pretty much qualifies as
>> a kid at this point. Maybe even the last 3-4 years of the previous one.
>
> To a great extent, yes. But I'd say
Can someone contact me from Netflix ASAP our Appliance in SLC went offline
and now our partner login doesn't work either.
Sincerely,
Erich Kaiser
The Fusion Network
er...@gotfusion.net
This topic is out of scope for the list. Please stop emailing these baiting
questions.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:27 PM Pengxiong Zhu wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's
> slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely
Hi folks,
We got plenty of positive responses in our last email regarding China's
slow transnational network. Many are suggesting it is likely influenced by
commercial decisions instead of censorship. It seems like the three Chinese
ISPs don't really have enough peering internationally in Asia,
Hi,
I forwarded this internally -- trying to locate the right contact for you.
_
*Justin Paine*
Head of Trust & Safety
PGP: BBAA 6BCE 3305 7FD6 6452 7115 57B6 0114 DE0B 314D
101 Townsend St., San Francisco, CA 94107
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM John Von Essen wrote:
>
On 31/Mar/20 23:22, Owen DeLong wrote:
> From my perspective, anyone born in this century pretty much qualifies as
> a kid at this point. Maybe even the last 3-4 years of the previous one.
To a great extent, yes. But I'd say the last 15 years have been very
telling.
> Turning consumers into
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 10:01 AM Randy Bush wrote:
> > He's a network operator. From North America, on the North American
> Network
> > Operators mailing list. Something you are not, so please stop spouting
> your
> > drivel on a list that has nothing to do with you.
>
> this is not how we
26 matches
Mail list logo
