Peter R. wrote:
Sylantro doesn't deal with small at all. (The price of the switch and
licensing makes that prohibitive).
But one of my clients is selling partitions on their Sylantro to ISPs
interested in offering their own VoIP - and controlling their destiny.
I would assume that would mean
rwf wrote:
I guess... If you want to give your company away.
Your WISP is for sale, I believe- would you take that if offered?
I'm sure Matt wants to expand his network up thataway g.
I would certainly be interested in picking up companies at such a
valuation. However, I am only interested
Charles Wu wrote:
But, minority stock in a privately held company (or even many public OTC
companies) is generally worthless
Without arguing the point, stock valuations are higher than cash because
of the added risk. If you look at the NextWeb purchase, which was 3x
revenue; a good portion
Tom DeReggi wrote:
I believe in the next year there will be a hgih volume bid war for
WISPs in major markets getting top dollar.
The reason is that, the Hype of Wireless is more valuable to a large
publically traded ISP, in stock holder perception, than the network
and revenue that they are
I believe you are applying a very simplistic view on a very complex
subject. Leases are a financial tool and like any other tool must be
used correctly in order to provide benefit. The CAPEX associated with
wireless is a serious cash flow issue that operators must deal with.
Leases provide a
You're welcome to deploy with us since we are the closest wireless
operator to you. You can even deploy it alongside one of our Bridgewave
units if you want. We have roof rights on almost 200 buildings here, so
there is a wide range of choices.
-Matt
One Ring Networks, Inc.
1230 Peachtree
We have been advised that providers of internet services are not
required to file form 499. However, we were additionally advised that
providers of transport services are required to file form 499. We
provide transport services in addition to internet services and as such
file form 499. I
I like how they end their pitch...
The reason and dreams behind getting into the WiSP business in the
first place
can finally be realized by contracting with RidgeviewTel’s WiSP Services
division.
-Matt
Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
FREE OSS and Billing Software for WiSPS
And then there are all
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_viewnewsId=20061030005461newsLang=en
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
This is something I don't get. What is the difference between me
generating the bill, emailing it out, and them printing
it.vsme generating the bill...me printing it
outletting snail mail pick it up.
It's the same. Both times it is generated,
Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
I guess I'm just lucky enough to find someone in the billing
department who will print it.
For the customers that we bill more than $2000 per month only about 10%
will accept an electronic bill.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Tom DeReggi wrote:
But if someone made the right product it would sell, and it would be
profitable. It just costs most software developers to much to build it
because they do not fully understand the business, and its learning
the business that is expensive for the developer, in my opionion.
Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
Socould you give it away? :)
I could... but how would I recover the costs of all the support that
would surely follow? And no, the answer is not to charge for it since
that would put me into the software business.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List:
1 bit = 1.16415322 × 10-10 gigabytes
1 gigabyte = 8,589,934,592 bits
-Matt
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
Hi All,
We get an ip usage accounting file sent to us once per month. The
numbers are huge. What is the formula to convert bits to GB?
thanks!
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
Brad Belton wrote:
Construction sites many times have no option other than wireless data and
Vonage fax lines. They make do with what they have and make the best of it.
At least in our markets constructions sites get wireless data and voice
with working fax directly from us.
-Matt
--
I always find it interesting that people like to spread FUD about taxes.
At this point, there is no new tax plan presented, so there is no way to
know what impact it will have. Further, from an economic standpoint, it
isn't clear that lower taxes are good for businesses. Regardless, this
list
Brad Belton wrote:
We now have a Level3 voice product that is far more flexible than Vonage or
our Nuvio offerings. Voice and data haven't been an issue and are far
superior to any LEC offering. Haven't tried fax over Level3 yet, but I'm
sure we'll have the opportunity to do so soon.
Which
Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
Huh. It isnt' clear that taking more money from your business with nothing
in return hurts your business? It isn't c lear that taking money from your
customers and potential customers can hurt your business?
What can I say... Some folks must be able to walk on
Brad Belton wrote:
Not making the Bush tax relief permanent is raising your taxes. No if, ands
or buts.
Actually no, it isn't. For all you know the Bush tax cut could be
replaced with a different tax cut. You don't know; none of us do.
Further, this isn't even relevant until 2009 when
Gino A. Villarini wrote:
Spectras also have GPS sync, plus fiber interfaces
Since when have Spectras had GPS sync?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
Charles Wu wrote:
You would have to get in touch w/ a Dragonwave Distributor =)
-Charles --- Dragonwave Distributor who supports WISPA
Does your company also take care of the license search and procurement
process?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Peter R. wrote:
The question remains why the Australian organisation is deciding to
pursue this patent at this stage in the market. While companies must
be able to reap the rewards of their own research and development,
there also must be consideration for the positive effects that low
I find it interesting that people are stating their organizations are
common carriers. The term common carrier has a very specific legal
meaning. Specifically, a common carrier is an entity licensed by the FCC
or a state agency to supply local and/or long distance
telecommunications services
One the biggest factors holding our industry back is a lack of success
on the part of the big poster children. People look at the past failures
of WinStar and Teligent and wonder if new entrants can succeed. Many
investors are watching FiberTower and NextLink to see if these new
poster
Dustin Jurman wrote:
Fiber Tower is rocking the house. They are very focused and have a core
nitch of customers that not only love their service but are willing to send
lots of jobs and money to them. Oh.. And they are executing like white on
rice.
Are you joking? A quick read of their
Dustin Jurman wrote:
Matt can you send some links for those sources.
http://www.fibertower.com/investors-earnings-releases.shtml
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
Rick Smith wrote:
We built a large network here in NJ - across 12 locations, and it covers
1000's of potential accounts with no access to dsl or cable.
Now looking for someone to come in with some operating / capex capital
and get some real growth going. Been in business plan mode for a week
We have an upcoming Wi-Fi deployment that involves around 50 Wi-Fi nodes
installed at street level along with the associated backhauls of these
nodes. We will be using gear from a vendor we don't have much experience
with (They were selected for other reasons).
Anyway, we are looking for a
Dustin Jurman wrote:
Being an ISP you understand build out costs, some put a lot more into a site
than others. We'd probably do things a little differently, maybe not. Here
is what I do know.
WinStar's plan assumed a 10 year ROI on a site. In hindsight that seems
rather foolish now, but
Peter R. wrote:
Why do you think there is so much MA activity?
It is difficult to organically grow sales. So companies buy growth.
That is true, but there is nothing wrong with organic growth coupled
with acquisition. Organic growth can get easier with size up until the
law of large numbers
Peter R. wrote:
Tom,
It is a negotiation between what one is willing to pay for a business
and what one is willing to sell it for.
Everything is for sale. It is a matter of the price whether they will
or not.
Which is why evaluation models only serve to get the negotiation
started; not to
Brad Belton wrote:
We've owned property that simply wasn't for sale...we were proven wrong. At
the right price anything is for sale!
That is the great thing about real estate; location matters. In other
industries, it is easy enough just go around if the business isn't for
sale. We have
For those of you running Canopy, we recently upgraded some of radios to
the latest firmware. We did this because of the continuing Ethernet
problems we were having with them. I am happy to report the new firm
does indeed fix the Ethernet negotiation issues mentioned in the release
notes. We
Guys,
We are now exceeding Orthogon's capacity on a regular basis. We are
backhauling as much as we can with fiber, but that isn't an option in
the suburbs. We have had good success with BridgeWave's products, but
the distance is a problem. Any suggestions on a product that can do high
Andrea Coppini (AIR Networks) wrote:
Are you looking at Unlicensed? I'm a fan of Mikrotik for high throughput,
long distance links. With bonding you can easily get 100Mbps speeds, just
keep adding links as your need grows.
See this: 150 Mbps FDX, unlicensed, with failover
Tim Kerns wrote:
The Orthagon 600 series is supposed to do 300 mb on a 30 Mhz channel.
I believe they do this using both vert and hor polarity. Is this the
system you are out growing?
First of all, 300Mbps is an aggregate figure. Second, in a low latency
deployment at 5-10 miles it is not
John Scrivner wrote:
Wow! Business must be good!
That depends on your perspective. We have a ton of orders and are racing
to service them all. The more we install the more capacity upgrades we
have to do meaning even more installs. This kind of growth is extremely
challenging because if it
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
NOo
NO one should buy ANY radio anymore that uses the entire band and is
always on. No more WMux fiascos needed.
Why not?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Gigacom product is the only one that you can get any real long distance out
of depending on the freq. They have licensed radios that perform very well in
the rainforest of South America at very long distance. 60k or 40 miles for some
applications at speeds of up
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Because its greedy.
Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are
greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to
go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t
Matt Liotta wrote:
Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
Whoops... meant inefficient.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Matt,
If you live in a remote area, with no potential interferers, then my
comment does not apply.
But last I heard you were deploying in the middle of Urban Atlanta and
possibly Urban DC, with the potential for many interferers eventually.
We mostly deploy in urban
Matt Larsen - Lists wrote:
Several of us on this list know how to shut down these large channel
backhauls, and have done so when they have intentionally interfered
with our operations. Be ready for someone to do the same to you if
you try using a full-band backhaul. More than one operator
Bob Moldashel wrote:
You can do that now with 3 Ceragon or Dragonwave radios phased into 1
antenna with much better redundancy. If one link dies you still have
the other two.
How are you phasing the radios together without significant loss?
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
I spent an hour or so yesterday on the phone with the Director of Sales
for Exalt. We are working on getting one of their backhauls in for
testing now.
From the specs...
I like that I can deploy it similar to Canopy backhauls because of the sync.
I like that it is a tri-band radio like the
Tom DeReggi wrote:
If our link is up, and we see new interference on it, we go after the
interferer until they move. I can tell you, if someone puts up a radio
using all 100mhz of spectrum, and it happens to cross one of our
cellsite or subscribers taking them down, the offendor's link will be
Travis Johnson wrote:
And, how much do you like the price?
I haven't gotten final pricing yet, but I was led to believe it was
comparable to Orthogon.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
Tom DeReggi wrote:
I'd take it one step further... Protocols to optimize QOS on Transit
routing. Is BGP good enough anymore?
What options are there to do the equivellent of OSLR for Transit and
peering.
For example, what merit is there to Internap's smart routing theories?
We own a Internap
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
attachments don't seem to get through. Can you post a link?
http://www.oneringnetworks.com/fcp.jpg
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives:
Tom DeReggi wrote:
We currently got a 30 mbps wireless link from our master data center
to an Internap datacenter building, about 1/4 mile away.
We were thinking of getting a second transit from them, and upgrading
the link speed to their building. At that distance even 60Ghz could work.
We
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=195942
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
I fully agree with Peter.
-Matt
Peter R. wrote:
Tom,
My limited exposure has a different perspective:
It is easier to keep building out instead of selling deep.
A prospect comes to the WISP with a $400 per month pipe and the WISP
builds to him.
There is the hope (and the hype) that this
Travis Johnson wrote:
Everyone in an S Corp has to get the same benefits - so if you take
health care, so does every employee is incorrect. We have consulted
with our accountant and our attorney on this exact matter. We have
about 30% of our employees with health insurance and 70% without.
I
http://gigaom.com/2006/12/20/earthlink-sf-milpitas/
Getting residents to subscribe might be more difficult. I used the
network on my laptop in a dozen different places around city hall, at
shopping centers, and around main streets and found that the network was
slow and the coverage was
You don't need to host Akamai boxes and/or rely solely on Akamai's
customers content for an improvement in experience and a decrease in
transit cost. IMHO, the easier way is to simply peer with the various
CDNs. If you peer with Akamai, LimeLight, Google, Yahoo, etc you won't
pay for transit
http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Apparently, the rumor is the deal will be approved by the end of the day
today. Seems like there should be some time period for public comment.
-Matt
Matt Liotta wrote:
http://www.fcc.gov/ATT_FINALMergerCommitments12-28.pdf
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe
Jack Unger wrote:
OK, I'll forgive the analogy but, in a real emergency, you have to do
what needs to be done.
Actually, in an emergency a public safety organization should make use
of their emergency communication plan, which really shouldn't rely on
unlicensed spectrum, a consumer access
Jack Unger wrote:
Probably 90% of public safety organizations' Emergency Communications
Plans have made use of ham radio operators for years and continue to
make use of hams today.
While a ham could certainly make use of unlicensed spectrum, consumer
access points, and best effort internet
Matt Liotta, Founder of One Ring Networks. “The
result for One Ring’s customers is faster, higher-quality connections.”
One Ring Networks currently multi-homes with four network service
providers (NSPs), including a major European carrier. While carrier
diversity is beneficial, the company wanted
Butch Evans wrote:
If you are looking for a fancy version, you can license the one from
http://www.ookla.com/speedtest/. That's a pretty expensive option,
though.
Just host a speedtest.net site. It only costs you bandwidth. You can try
ours at the Atlanta speedtest.net location.
-Matt
--
It appears you are about 30 miles LOS to where cheaply available
bandwidth is located. Depending on the height of your tower and the
height of the building on the other end, just about any 5.8Ghz backhaul
should get you there. I would assume you don't even a lot of bandwidth
since you have a
RickG wrote:
Dave,
Thanks for the explanation. Really, my clients want to improve their
browsing speed. Of course, like most people, they associate speed with
speed test website such as speakeasy, etc.
In order to improve speed you need lower RTT and less congestion/packet
loss on any given
Brett Meier wrote:
Has anyone worked with GigaBeam's products?
http://www.gigabeam.com http://www.gigabeam.com/
We are more happy with Bridgewave's offering.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Marty Dougherty wrote:
Can you tell us more about your bridgewave links? How have they
performed?
We haven't had a single problem with them. They perform as advertised.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Have you thought about selling the customer a pipe that works for any
and all traffic at the speed the customer signed up for as opposed to
deciding for the customer?
-Matt
Jason wrote:
List,
Several times in the last few weeks the topic of bandwidth
management has been discussed, but I
I was out most of yesterday, so I missed responding to the bandwidth
management thread. I don't want to respond to any of the individual
emails at this point. Below is a summary of responses in not particular
order.
I believe customers should pay for the bandwidth they want/need and in
turn
We are looking for some local people to work with in St. Louis.
Preferably, it would be an existing WISP, but local contractors would be
acceptable as well. Let me know if anyone is in that area.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
Prepending is not an effective way of forcing other providers to send
their traffic through your preferred upstream. In fact, there is no good
way to do it at all. It is far better to just have quality upstreams.
-Matt
Don Annas wrote:
When peering with multiple providers, is it a
Jeff Broadwick wrote:
AS prepending is fairly effective method. Assuming you have more then just
a /24 network, you also can use selective advertising of more specific
prefixes through a preferred provider to influence inbound traffic.
AS prepending is not as effective as it used to be. I
In case anyone wasn't already aware... we are interested in talking to
anyone who wants to sell.
-Matt
Patrick Leary wrote:
I know of four WISPs that used to have smaller operations that within
the last month each received over $10 million in new money. I know of
several others doing some
We are just deploying a new IOS image that includes Cisco's SII
architecture. Our only cost is time.
-Matt
Rick Smith wrote:
OK, Don't point me to some confusing URL I don't have time
(or patience) to read about how to comply with CALEA.
What are YOU as a WISP doing to comply ?
How much
Kreigh
Network Engineer
OnlyInternet.Net Broadband Wireless
Supernova Technologies
Office: (800) 363-0989
Direct: (260) 827-2486
Fax:(260) 824-9624
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oibw.net
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt Liotta
Sent
We don't do much Wi-Fi, so I figured I would ask the list. If I wanted
to deploy a number of Wi-Fi radios at the same location what kind of
setups are available? I am looking for something where I can deploy one
physical box that has multiple radios as opposed to a single box per
radio.
If you can find some old Metrocom sectors you will have what you need. I
believe a bunch of them are still up at Blackjack if you want to take
them down. Otherwise, Superpass makes some.
-Matt
Ralph Fowler wrote:
I was about to post the same question.
I have a location where I need duals as
Most service providers never make it much past break even because of the
high fixed costs in this business. Fill up one T1 with customers and the
second one is the same price as the first. You have to be able to
support large volumes just to change cost ratios. Then you have things
like CALEA
Travis Johnson wrote:
Equipment leasing? Every install for us is a break-even (after truck
roll, installing a firewall/router/AP for free, etc.) and we start
making money on every customer on their first monthly payment. :)
Equipment leasing only addresses one part of an operator's fixed costs.
Rick Smith wrote:
actually, I've been told the opposite. Buyers of your company want
as close to zero liability as possible. Especially when they will probably
come in and replace your gear with theirs. If the two seem to match,
you only win bigger...
Finance people don't want to replace
I'm surprised no one has complained about their use of Microsoft Excel.
Form 477 does not work with OpenOffice. They sent me a PDF to fill out
instead.
-Matt
Forbes Mercy wrote:
Oh god here we go again with a ton of emails saying we are breaking the law. I
have never signed mine and the
David E. Smith wrote:
Matt Liotta wrote:
I'm surprised no one has complained about their use of Microsoft
Excel. Form 477 does not work with OpenOffice. They sent me a PDF to
fill out instead.
Microsoft Office, while not necessarily the best software, is a /de
facto/ standard, and keeping
Tom DeReggi wrote:
Anyone that can afford name brand high capacity unlicensed PTPs can
afford 60Ghz.
You can go 1/2 mile for under $10,000 with Proxim. Financed over 3
years will allow it to be paid for with the first T1 customer.
The problem is back hauling it :-) Not all WISPs will be in
George Rogato wrote:
Lets hope this time, the manufacturer acts responsibly and doesn't
just sell them to just anyone with a cc.
I didn't think a radio vendor was allowed to sell a product for use with
an experimental license. I thought the radio vendor could only let you
use the radio for the
Patrick Leary wrote:
That's why operator-acquired STAs are usually worked cooperatively with
vendors, i.e. the vendor is looking for the operator to perform specific
real world tests for the purposes of product validation, refinement,
etc.
Sure... we just had to give the radios back
It seems premature to suggest that Clearwire is tanking. When you
consider that an additional 4 million shares were issued and that the
overall market is currently down, I think their stock has move as
expected. I bought in at $20.68 and am quite happy with my position.
-Matt
--
WISPA
Brad Belton wrote:
Certainly McCaw can afford this type of bleeding, but for how long and more
importantly how long will Wall Street wait to see the light at the end of
the tunnel? Will CLWR ever bask in the sunshine?
I think you are asking the wrong question. The real question is how long
wispa wrote:
Ok, Clearwire expects to continue to build out. They expect to spend 1.1
billion, and market hacks expect them to triple the customer base over the
next year or so.
So, even next year, they're going to spend between 3 and 4 times their gross
revenue.
What is interesting
http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/why-did-level-3-turn-off-a-rural-isp/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
a little guy like me knows how to block an offending IP address,
and I am stupid, LOL!
Matt Liotta wrote:
http://gigaom.com/2007/03/14/why-did-level-3-turn-off-a-rural-isp/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
that place a
new business opportunity in itself.
Scriv
Matt Liotta wrote:
It does make you wonder why the ISP in question wasn't multi-homed.
-Matt
Tim Wolfe wrote:
Thank The good Lord above that I never signed the TelCove contract
for bandwidth last year!. I mean, you really have no idea
Tom DeReggi wrote:
It does make you wonder why the ISP in question wasn't multi-homed.
Although, I recognize being multi-homed would have protected the WISP
in this situation... That is not really the issue.
The issue is that Businesses often build strategic partnerships, and
togeather
and have
an auto-fail over router. I promote this to people who want fault
tolerant connectivity. If/when we roll out our 12 county AWS based
broadband / cell network we will be multi-homed. Until then the
economics of this would make us broke. I am not exaggerating.
Scriv
Matt Liotta wrote
George Rogato wrote:
You know, this really is the answer. Two different isp's
I've had the customers over the years, that want 10- 9's because
their business depends upon the internet, but then they don't want to
pay an extra 30 - 40.00 per month to get it.
So you would recommend to your
It may also be of interest to note that companies such as ourselves have
the ability to provide lawful intercept in compliance with CALEA for our
single-homed downstream ISP customers assuming there is no NAT involved.
-Matt
Peter R. wrote:
ISP-Planet has a blurb on CALEA:
WISPs take note:
Butch Evans wrote:
This is not acceptable. ALL facilities based service providers are
required to be compliant.
How is using a 3rd party not compliant? I seem to recall the FCC
specifically allows for 3rd parties to provide your compliance.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
SPECIAL FOCUS: WIRELESS
Wireless eyes watch for crime
Video surveillance in out-of-the-way places made possible with
next-generation network.
http://www.comnews.com/features/2007_september/0907special_focus_eyes.aspx
Mike Delp wrote:
Nice article Matt. What types of equipment was used in this project?
Deliberant, Trango, and Bridgewave.
-Matt
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON
Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:
What's the deal with cogent de-peering lately?
Not sure what you are looking for outside of the depeers I already
mentioned.
-Matt
** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October
Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:
I was just curious why cogent is depeering other carriers. Wasn't there
something with Level3 awhile ago, now these two and I've hear some rumors of
other too.
The Cogent/Level3 depeer was a big deal and hurt a lot of companies. The
problem with Cogent is they use
Mike Hammett wrote:
The Level3 depeer was caused by Level3, not Cogent. It has the same
effect, but a different cause.
Whoever caused it; Cogent is the one that made it painful for the entire
internet. They could have rerouted traffic instead of blackholing all of
Level3. The fact that they
Mike Bushard, Jr wrote:
My question is with this type of thing happening, what would be the best way
to obtain bandwidth? Get multiple tier 1's, or a mix of tier 1's and tier
2's, or multiple tier 2's?
It all really depends on which carriers you are referring to. However,
based on what we are
301 - 400 of 683 matches
Mail list logo
