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 expand to
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 -
On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net 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
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com 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
-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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson weaselkee...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net 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
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 does
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
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
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 o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 ,
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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 20:58 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu 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
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 is
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
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 reflect
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
On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu 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
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.
On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
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
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 100:1
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate.
Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in
favor of Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about
as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick
Blah blah politics. This is Verizon whining. plain and simple.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in
They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are
subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the
hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing
letters to completely changing the language of something.
snarkThis PR reminds me of a story I heard about a few telegraph
operators in the early 1930s. Mr. Nathan 'Nat' Flax and Mr. Hu Toob
were telegraph operators for the mighty VerizonTelegraph Corporation.
Misters Flax and Toob were able, through natural abilities and long
practice, able to send
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell
to the duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress,
court or FCC ruling they require...
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:03:35 -0500, Bruce H McIntosh said:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live
up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free
exchange of ideas,
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not
reflect what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that
the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN
does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to
Actually most users would perceive a download increase as a speed upgrade
because they are not hitting the performance limits of the upstream. In the
DSL world, there is a maximum reliable speed attainable due to the physics
involved in high speed transmission over copper. More speed in one
On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one
creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download
all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several
These standards are for the interoperability of the equipment between vendors.
There is no technical reason that you could not have one particular speed in
one direction and any other speed in the opposite direction as long as you do
not exceed the total bandwidth potential of the loop. In
On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
over the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed
On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live
up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world
On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially
entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such,
truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world
through free exchange of ideas, information,
Jack,
I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a
standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds
than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
- ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_T1.413_Issue_2,
up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s
- G.dmt
On 2/27/2015 10:43, wbn wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans
b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been
stifled over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember
having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
Yes, I am
On 02/27/2015 07:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
over the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Bob
On 02/27/2015 09:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
Cute. Obviously they never watched the Leno segment where a pair of
amateur radio ops using Morse code outperformed a couple of teens
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.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Let's not discuss Comcast and its performance in the customer service
department so not to completely sidetrack the discussion...
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:05 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
What about ISPs that
Hello NANOGers,
Following up on the below effort from last year, the DDoS/DoS Attack BCOP Draft
document is ready for the last call 2-week period. After this period and unless
notable objections are raised, the current document will be ratified as such.
The current document can be found in
On 2/27/2015 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[VERISON should say...] this won't effect us at all
Until those hundreds of pages are made public, how can anyone possibly
know if that if that is even a truthful statement? Furthermore, what
they SAY they intend to do with that authority... and
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled over
the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
No, but I remember in the late '90s
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:34:37 AM
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem. For instance, Comcast has (so far)
provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my
bill, and the few times I've had to
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
They're still in business?
In all seriousness though, that's a fair question. What are the
downsides of Title II w/o tariffs for for ISPs who aren't engaging in
Bad Behavior?
On 2015-02-27 12:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect
what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that the
average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content
at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't
think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average
user does not create content that anyone needs to see.
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
You want 1930s telecom, you got it. ;-)
Yes, I know telephone was available then.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
To: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net, NANOG list
Got your attention. Made a statement. Good for them.
NANOG nanog-boun...@nanog.org wrote on 02/27/2015 09:10:58 AM:
From: Scott Fisher littlefish...@gmail.com
To: Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Date: 02/27/2015 09:12 AM
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on
I've come across two service providers in the last couple of weeks
that have had issues with L2 devices eating IPv6 PMTUD packets. I am
allowed to share some of the information from one of those service
providers here.
$ISP contacted me to ask more about why PMTUD was being reported as
broken on
On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote...
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
You were allowed to see the proposed rules in
I think you may see more than average numbers of creative types at a university
environment. Once you have a full time job you tend to have less time for
creative endeavors. I can say that having thousands of customers, the
content producers are definitely a minority. I would even guess that
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access
to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you).
Imagine: We're sorry Mr. Homeowner, you do have a 200 amp electrical
service but we limit
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net
For
On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_
buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt
surprises us and actually represents the people.
I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is
AFC, the only shelf I worked on that would silently allow you to allocate
so much bandwidth to the ADSL cards that voice wouldn't work
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
Naslund, Steve wrote:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect
what Joe Average User actually needs and wants? The statement that the
average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect
reality at all. Do a lot
On 2015-02-27 12:58, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
(*SNIP*)
Now, the RO isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out
47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR. Here's a link:
On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall.
Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution
is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the
On 27-Feb-15 10:52, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the
duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court
or
On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Jack,
I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a
standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream
speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC)
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu wrote:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely
unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.
Hi Bruce,
We part ways there. I see nothing inherently wrong with asymmetric
connections. I see nothing inherently wrong
On 2/27/2015 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content
at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't
think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average
user does
Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content
at 5 mbpsPeriod. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't
think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average
user does not create content that
On 2015-02-27 12:49, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy
the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises
us and actually represents the people.
*snrk* Really? Ok, I'll let my Inner Cynic out for a romp - the US
On 02/27/2015 01:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
These regulations are found in 47CFR§6, not 47CFR§8, which is the
subject of docket 14-28.
Not having read the actual RO in
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given
symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto
deployment reality.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even
begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to fix
an industry that has done amazingly good
Bill,
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for
all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full
bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in
order to do everything reasonably within your power to make
(3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet
to another access points.
But they can't. That's the point. There is a massive dearth of
legitimate competition in the broadband space for the vast majority of
our population. And it's that lack of competition that has
The funniest thing about Verizon complaining about Title II, is that they
used Title II to roll out their FIOS FTTP.
I really am unsure of what they expected the outcome to be, and further
proves the point of how big of a mess ISP¹s in this country are.
Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator
On 02/27/2015 06:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
OK. The Morse code I knew about, from news stories. What I didn't know
is that the translation would be PDF of 1930s-style typewritten
I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:
We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our
competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good
business practices on others
(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with
On 02/27/2015 07:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things
like CALEA.
The first indications of any changes would be Cisco and Juniper
announcing CALEA products in their low- and mid-line network products.
Or there may be some near-startups
On 2/27/2015 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are
subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the
hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing
letters to
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
Obama's version of net neutrality... will soon be just about as cool as
having supported SOPA.
Morse code is just a different binary encoding.
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
over the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Bob Evans
CTO
Bob Evans wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been stifled
over the last 50 years under Title II.
Anyone remember having to rent their rotary phones from ATT?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Let's also remember that it was
I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think
On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote...
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
It was in the FCC story: the rules (that thick
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com
wrote:
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
But that didn't stop most of us old timers on this list. The first
digital circuit that I played with as a kid was an old Strowger switch
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us
wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal
upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra
measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical
While I view that statement with trepidation, my first guess would one that
isn't in violation of state or federal law. About the only things I can
think off hand, ie stuff we get told to take down as hosters today, are
sites violating copyright law and child pornography. I hope that we don't
Bill,
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.
Let's say you decide to start your own ISP, call it BillsNet. You buy a
On 2/27/2015 1:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top
10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream
than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k
residential and business subscribers
Steve,
I'd be up in arms if all I had was a 1mbps uplink :)
Having said that, the 10 mbps I get from Comcast right now is more than I
need to do remote desktop, code check ins, and host of atypical uploading.
I am absolutely not against good upstream rates! I do have a problem with
people
Kevin,
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 here. We're talking about the physical
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? :)
--
Bruce H. McIntosh
It certainly seems to be Friday.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:27:08 +, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
said:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil?
Does that not reflect what Joe Average User actually needs and
wants? ... There is no technical reason
Scott,
Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to use
it. I know it is a real
pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to work
across my VPN.
Steve
On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using
[Sorry for top-posting]
I actually think you are both right and partially wrong. It IS the ISPs
responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
you paid for. This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
Broadband America.
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate
resources.
But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link
to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits
available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
On
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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 customers peak potential
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
On 27/02/2015 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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
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
From 47CFR§8.5b
(b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
network management; nor shall such person block applications that
compete with
1 - 100 of 182 matches
Mail list logo
