Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote: Most places have no fiber last-mile. Some do. Of those that do, I know that many were installed by cable companies and that there are in many of those places utility taxes that are being collected and passed along to at least partially fund said buildout. I know that Comcast signed a huge sweet-heart deal with the city of San Jose, for example before they started tearing up my neighborhood. They seem to have laid interduct to the curb and co-ax to the home. I haven't seen them bring any fiber anywhere yet, but, I presume that's what the interduct is for at some point. So I'm confused. San Jose is doing exactly what you are advocating. San Jose has decided to use taxpayer funds to build a city-owned fiber optic conduit system it will own and lease to telecommunication companies and other users. Palo Alto also spent a lot of its taxpayers funds to build a city-owned fiber optic system. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/ http://www.sanjoseca.gov/budget/FY0506/proposedCapital/10.pdf See Fiber Optics Development Fund But what does that have to do with funding ILEC facilities? As I recall, despite spending a lot of taxpayer money, the cities couldn't convince the ILEC to use the city-owned fiber optic facilities. The ILECs built and use its own facilities, without taxpayer funds. Heck, until 1982, they wouldn't even sell you a phone. The phones were stamped property of the Bell System, not for sale. I'm not sure if there is really a natural monopoly. There are multiple wires to most houses and through most public rights of way. The fact that there a damage between different provider facilities when they dig in a right of way is evidence that right of ways contain multiple providers.
RE: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
--On November 15, 2005 11:02:18 PM -0800 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the market, including the creation of new providers to seize opportunities being ignored by the existing ones. The worse the existing provider it is, the more practical it is to compete with them. If they are providing what people want at a reasonable price, there is no need for competition. If they are not, then the it becomes practical for multiple providers to enter the market. If you assume that the cost to develop existing infrastructure is not insanely less than the cost to develop new infrastructure, the isolation from competition comes directly from the investment. 1. The existing infrastructure is usually all that is needed for many of the services in question. Laying parallel copper as a CLEC is not only prohibitively expensive, in most areas, it's actually illegal. Usually, municipalities have granted franchise rights of access to right of way to particular companies on an exclusive basis. That makes it pretty hard for a competitor to enter the market if they can't get wholesale access to the existing copper. For now this may be true. But you'll set up another generation of the same problem if you continue to advocate subsidized infrastructure. At some point that infrastructure will be inadequate, and you will have done nothing to make it easier to build competitive new infrastructure. If munipalities granting monopolies is a problem, then stop such monopolies -- don't advocate them! The problem is that because of cost and other factors of last-mile deployment of terrestrial infrastructure, these are natural monopolies whether you like it or not. For example, how many streets from how many different providers pass in front of your house? How many different telcos have copper to the junction box that could be used to provide service to your home? How many cable companies have fiber or co-ax in your street? For the vast majority of the united States, it is very hard to answer anything other than 0 or 1 to any of these questions. The primary problem as I see it is not the monopoly of the infrastructure, but, the inherent connection between the management of that monopoly infrastructure and one of the competitors for the provision of services over that infrastructure. 2. The existing copper was actually deployed (at least in most of the united States) using public subsidies. The taxpayers actually paid for the network. The physical infrastructure should be the property of the people. The ownership claim of the telephone companies is almost as baseless as the Verisign clame that they own the data in whois. It doesn't much matter and it can't be fixed. The static value of the infrastructure is basically depreciated to zero by now. The profits have been reaped. Don't justify future bad decisions on past inquities that can't be fixed anyway. Just start right from now on. If I thought what I was suggesting was a bad decision, I wouldn't be suggesting it. However, I think there is much more justification for this decision than past inequities. As long as you have an area that tends to create a natural monopoly and allow one competitor that uses that infrastructure to also own said infrastructure, it creates an unfair environment for other competitors. Are you really advocating that the market is best served by multiple providers laying last-mile fiber? Doubling the cost of FTTH to create just two FTTH providers in an area seems pretty stupid to me. OTOH, a 10% increase (probably much less) in the cost of FTTH to facilitate a virtually unlimited number of service providers being able to access said fiber on a consumer-choice basis doesn't seem so stupid to me. For example, if Bill Gates took a few billion dollars out of his pocket and launched 80 satellites to provide wireless Internet access, it would be damn hard to compete with him if he wasn't trying to recover those few billion dollars. But if you spend a few billion, you get a few billion worth. Anyone else can spend the same amount and get the same advantage. 3. Except when you consider that there are only so many orbital slots that can be maintained. (see 1 above as well). If Bill manages to launch N satellites and N leaves N/2 orbital slots available for other uses, then, it's pretty hard to launch another N satellites at any cost. The present infrastructure in no way impedes the construction of future infrastructure. If it did, this would be a valid point.
Re: espanix.net gone
Fredy Kuenzler wrote: I can't reach http://www.espanix.net/ for a while now. And I guess that the espanix.net range accidentally has been removed from advertising ... show ip bgp 193.149.1.201 % Network not in table No one seems to transit AS6895 volounterly anymore. Maybe someone can point the espanix guys that they only see themselves these days. To clarify the issue: I got some proposals and positive confirmations, however I found out only because someone removed it from the DMOZ index: http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/Europe/Spain/ seejay 12/Oct/2005 11:00:37 EDTWebsite was not available for the last 4 weeks and an IP is not currently assigned to the host [Zu Ungeprüften verschoben in Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/Europe/Spain] rapido 30/Oct/2005 04:58:37 ESTsite still unreachable [Gehalten in Unbearbeiteten in Computers/Internet/Routers_and_Routing/Internet_Exchanges/Europe/Spain] And checking some LG's at http://ops.rogerstelecom.net/ I see that less than half of the carriers have the route. So I assume that really noone is transiting AS6895. F.
Re: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved
J On Nov 16, 2005, at 12:15 AM, Alain Hebert wrote: Thanks. ( There is more interesting details but I will reserve myself. (; ) We're already working on making contact with the upstreams, but you're right I forgot about making more specific announcement. Thanks again. Just don't be too surprised if... A. Your vendors blocks more specifics from you. B. No one listens to your more specifics because they are TOO specific. C. You contribute just a little bit more to the de-aggregation of the Internet (tongue in cheek). Regards, Blaine
RE: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal, or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure. As such, I think we should accept that monopoly and limit the monopoly zone to that area (MPOE-B-Box or MPEO-MDF) and prevent an unfair advantage by separating the management of that section of infrastructure from the service providers offering services which use said infrastructure. This is the same create a free market through extensive regulation that has created the disaster we have now. Any last mile technology whose cost of deployment can only be justified by the value of a monopoly on its deployment just won't be deployed in this model. That's not a free market. This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very bad one. But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100 years when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are now by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time and make no sense at all now. Had we done this twenty years ago, the last mile would be dialup and billions of public dollars would have been spent to create and maintain an irrelevent technology. Meanwhile, the newer technologies wouldn't be deployed. This, at least on a theoretical level creates a carrier-neutral party managing the monopoly portion while maximizing and levelling the playing field in all other areas. A carrier-netural party may not be technology neutral, business model neutral, or neutral in many ways that may turn out to be important. As I see it, you give up on everything that's important from the very first step. What if a non-carrier neutral last mile turns out to be the scheme most people really want when it's offered to them? Competition in last mile technologies, deployment strategies, contract terms, and the like are not just important, they're absolutely vital. If you try to pick the winners and losers, or worse let local governments do so, you'll just get another generation of publically financed mediocre solutions while the truly innovative technologies get shut out by the monopoly arrangements. DS
Re: a record?
Title: Re: a record? In Iptables you can keep port 22 closed until needed, opening it first by telneting to a higher port say 5500 and Iptables just giving access to this ip. If you want to close it again you can telnet back in on another assigned port say 5501, thus closing ssh port to that ip. -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 22 -m recent --rcheck --name SSH -j ACCEPT -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5500 -m recent --name SSH --set -j DROP -A RH-Firewall-1-INPUT -m state --state NEW -m tcp -p tcp --dport 5501 -m recent --name SSH --remove -j DROP Thanks, Patrick. Moving sshd from port 22 to port 137, 138 or 139. Nasty eh? don't do that! Lots of (access) isps around the world (esp here in Europe) block those ports If you're going to move sshd somewhere else, port 443 is a fine choice. Rarely blocked, rarely probed by ssh kiddies. It's probed all the time by malicious web spiders, but since you're not a web server, you don't care. R's, John This e-mail contains confidential information or information belongingto Servecentric Ltd and is intended solely for the addressee(s). Theunauthorized disclosure, use, dissemination or copy (either in whole orin part) of this e-mail, or any information it contains, is prohibited.Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and donot necessarily represent those of Servecentric Ltd. E-mails aresusceptible to alteration and their integrity cannot be guaranteed.Servecentric shall not be liable for the contents of this e-mail ifmodified or falsified. If you are not the intended recipient of thise-mail, please delete it immediately from your system and notify thesender of the wrong delivery and of the email's deletion.
RE: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
Right, and this is appropriate. Large investments in infrastructure should *not* be made if there's already adequate service. Better to invest in places where there isn't. Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price which is two to three times what it should be costing and the provider is enjoying the ability to do this because nobody else is in the market space? It depends how much they invested. In some areas that are very expensive to serve, that may be precisely what happens. In areas that are easy to serve and customer dense, you won't get away with this for very long. You need prices to be high where it really is expensive to provide access because that's what provides the incentive to develop cheaper ways to provide access. Perhaps we don't all fly personal planes today because the government chose to build roads. The government can't do a good job of picking winners and losers, so stop letting it. Agreed. So, let the government do what it does well... Manage the things that tend to be natural monopolies and keep it out of everything else as much as possible. Are you arguing that there should be competition for the provision of highways, for example? Yes. How would you see that working? Do we stack six copies of I-80 on top of each other, or, do we allocate multiple semi-parallel routes for freeways and let different companies build different routes and charge what they want for each of them? How do you see that working on a neighborhood level? Even if you think it works at the highway level, we're really talking about the neighborhood streets here. Now you are asking me to pick the winners and losers and claiming that if I'm not smart enough to pick the winners and losers, a free market won't work. I am the one saying nobody is smart enough to figure out how to do it. You are the one saying governments will be smart enough to build the right infrastructure and now slow innovation. (As they always have in the past despite every effort to provide 'equal access'.) The last-mile infrastructure for terrestrial services looks a lot more like a local roadways inside a neighborhood than any other analogy I can think of. I have yet to see any environment where this has been accomplished on anything other than a monopoly basis. The monopoly is not the problem. The lack of competition is the problem. Perhaps you don't see the difference. If a monopoly is the most efficient result, then competition will lead to an efficient monopoly. It's when you choose a monopoly and shut out other efficient results that you have a problem. That's the situation we have now and that's the situation you propose to maintain. If it's expensive or impractical to run eight company's fiber in a city, then make the companies pay that expense to run fiber or don't let them. That way, we'll have eight fibers if that really is the right solution and we won't if it isn't. If someone wants to run carrier-neutral fiber, they can do so. But if that's not the best model or best solution, don't shut out the others. The list goes on, but, believe me when I tell you that there are plenty of consumers in California that do not feel that SBC is meeting their needs, but, they don't have access to a real CLEC. Oh, I know that story, believe me. So, do you really think that if SBC had the same terms for access to the MDF-MPOE leg that any competitor had this would not actually change or would get worse? I don't. I think it would actually solve many of the current problems and encourage many of the CLECs to re-enter the market. I think if SBC had to open their circuits, they wouldn't build as many of them unless they were forced to. Living in an area with no local high-speed access options, I want them to have every incentive to build new infrastructure. If you force them to build new infrastructure, or subsidize it publically, then you are again picking winners and losers. The big losers will be the new technologies, because they'll never have a chance If a free market naturally creates a problem, then it creates an incentive for a clever solution. No person or group could engineer a solution as clever as the one the market will evolve. But your proposal requires such a group. It essentially extends exactly what we have now. And what about a carrier that needs different infrastructure to provide the type of service it wants to provide? They can build it, and, if they get a competitor that wants equal access to it, they get reimbursed for the build. You realize that that is absolutely crazy. That's like saying you can buy a lottery ticket, and if you win, give me the ticket and I'll reimburse you its cost. And repeating the same problem 50 years from now when innovative services can't compete with the maintained subsidized infrastructure.
Re: STILL Paging Google...
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Elvey) [Wed 16 Nov 2005, 01:56 CET]: Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, instead of way down. robots.txt is about explicitly spidering your site; Google will still follow links from outside towards your website and index pages linked that way. This is common knowledge -- Niels. -- Calling religion a drug is an insult to drugs everywhere. Religion is more like the placebo of the masses. -- MeFi user boaz
RE: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very bad one. But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100 years when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are now by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time and make no sense at all now. This separation model has been proven in the UK with electrical utilities, gas utilities and railroads. Some serious mistakes were made in the railroad model but they are being remedied over time and the model is being adjusted. In the UK, you can buy your electricity from your gas company or your telephone company. Or you can get your home phone from your gas company. There is a regulated utility that builds, repairs and operates the infrastructure and last mile but they do not sell to consumers and business users. Go to the website http://www.uswitch.com and have a look at the suppliers under the various categories. The separation exists in its purest form with gas and electric suppliers but you will notice that there is a broadband category because from the consumer viewpoint, DSL internet access appears to be structured in the same way. I think that the UK model is the model of the future and I suspect that the BT Openreach separation is an attempt by regulators to move telecom into the same type of structure. You may find the background documents at this site to be of interest http://www.reform.co.uk/website/transport/thefutureofrail.aspx because they show how the complexities of the rail industry are adapted to this model. I can't imagine telecom to be any more complex than rail. --Michael Dillon P.S. I have no personal knowledge of BT Openreach other than what I can find via google.
Re: STILL Paging Google...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Elvey) [Wed 16 Nov 2005, 01:56 CET]: Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, instead of way down. Way back in the early '90's someone came up with an elegant solution to this problem. When building a site in a folder named /httproot, all dynamic pages, i.e. scripts, were placed in a folder named /httproot/cgi-bin Then somebody invented robots.txt to allow people to tell spiders to leave the cgi-bin folder alone. Sites which follow the ancient paradigm do not run into these kinds of problems. Some people would say that asking the world to re-engineer the robots.txt protocol instead of building sites compliant with the protocol, is in violation of the robustness principle as expressed by Jon Postel in RFC 793 section 2.10 and reiterated in section 4.5 of RFC 3117. When something doesn't work, the correct operational response is to fix it. --Michael Dillon
Re: paypal down!
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.paypal.com Port 80 Paypal is an SSL-only service, and port 443 is working just fine. It appears that it's only the port 80 - port 443 redirector that's down... -- Harald
Re: a record?
On 11/16/05, Patrick Lynchehaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Iptables you can keep port 22 closed until needed, opening it first by telneting to a higher port say 5500 and Iptables just giving access to this ip. If you want to close it again you can telnet back in on another assigned port say 5501, thus closing ssh port to that ip. Yup. AKA port knocking which I think someone did mention upthread
Re: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved
Hi, A. Yeap we got the ok B. I used /21 instead C. Once that TelCo stop being a child we'll be back to /20, I'll like to keep it clean. FYI: We had excellent support from the peers of that TelCo, so the matters should be resolved today and the subnet back to be announced in his origial form. Have fun... Blaine Christian wrote: J On Nov 16, 2005, at 12:15 AM, Alain Hebert wrote: Thanks. ( There is more interesting details but I will reserve myself. (; ) We're already working on making contact with the upstreams, but you're right I forgot about making more specific announcement. Thanks again. Just don't be too surprised if... A. Your vendors blocks more specifics from you. B. No one listens to your more specifics because they are TOO specific. C. You contribute just a little bit more to the de-aggregation of the Internet (tongue in cheek). Regards, Blaine -- Alain Hebert[EMAIL PROTECTED] PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netfax 514-990-9443
RE: What do we mean when we say competition?
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that still true if the adequate service is
being provided at a price which is two to three
times what it should be costing and the provider is
enjoying the ability to do this because nobody
else is in the market space?
I'm confused. Earlier in this thread you were arguing
that the current providers were keeping priced
artificially LOW.
snip
After 25 years, we're finally starting to see the
beginnings of recognition of that in American
telecommunications
services. Generally speaking, I don't think the
market is well
served by having to wait that long.
Are you saying that US market is 25 years behind other
countries in anything? There is greater hi-speed
penetration in some non-US markets with dramatically
different demographics (mostly much higher density),
and few businesses here have seen a compelling reason
to move to IPv6, but what exactly is so lacking?
snip
So, do you really think that if SBC had the same
terms for
access to the MDF-MPOE leg that any competitor had
this would
not actually change or would get worse? I don't.
The example the above quote referred to was about SBC
not meeting the services of some individuals in CA,
but who don't have access to a CLEC. It's fairly
disingenuous to say that the MDF - MPOE leg is the
problem there, because that is actually the regulated
portion of SBC (in-region ILEC activities are heavily
regulated, and a great deal of emphasis at SBC is
placed on compliance with regulations): if no CLECs
have stepped up to provide service to those customers,
that's probably because they don't think it's
profitable to do so.
OTOH, if the shared LMI was operated by a neutral
third party
and leased to SBC and any other competitor at the
same price for
the same component, that would resolve most of what
is
bothering me about the current system. It would
allow me
to buy phone service without giving money to SBC.
Today,
I can't do that unless I go to VOIP over WISP which
has its
own set of tradeoffs.
Depends on the town, doesn't it? In DC, there are
three phone providers who run their own last-mile to
(some) homes. Nobody other than Verizon will come to
my house, but Cavalier and RCN both go to condo
buildings nearby. In addition, lots of people here
have VoIP over cableco (mostly Comcast), and even more
have no land line at all.
Anecdote: A co-worker is getting Verizon FTTH, and
they have to dig about a 3/4 mile trench to his house
(he's rural). He's not being charged for the
installation, even though it'll be several years
before it pays for itself. It's hard to see that as
an example of a {big | evil} monopoly which is hurting
consumers.
Regarding your proposal, are there other utilities
which are subject to the same rule (that the
infrastructure can be repurchased by the city at the
city's convenience)?
Another thing to consider is the definition of LMI -
specifically, what do you mean by last mile? Do you
mean from the house to the street (think sewer), or
from the house to a junction box on the corner (think
power), or from the house to a central office
somewhere, or some other distance?
Also, what about provisions for point-to-point layer-1
service? Under your proposal, cities may become
responsible for providing this themselves - is that
what you intend?
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
__
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
Hello; On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: --On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the market, including the creation of new providers to seize opportunities being ignored by the existing ones. The worse the existing provider it is, the more practical it is to compete with them. If they are providing what people want at a reasonable price, there is no need for competition. If they are not, then the it becomes practical for multiple providers to enter the market. If you assume that the cost to develop existing infrastructure is not insanely less than the cost to develop new infrastructure, the isolation from competition comes directly from the investment. 1. The existing infrastructure is usually all that is needed for many of the services in question. Laying parallel copper as a CLEC is not only prohibitively expensive, in most areas, it's actually illegal. Usually, municipalities have granted franchise rights of access to right of way to particular companies on an exclusive basis. That makes it pretty hard for a competitor to enter the market if they can't get wholesale access to the existing copper. 2. The existing copper was actually deployed (at least in most of the united States) using public subsidies. The taxpayers actually paid for the network. The physical infrastructure should be the property of the people. The ownership claim of the telephone companies is almost as baseless as the Verisign clame that they own the data in whois. For example, if Bill Gates took a few billion dollars out of his pocket and launched 80 satellites to provide wireless Internet access, it would be damn hard to compete with him if he wasn't trying to recover those few billion dollars. But if you spend a few billion, you get a few billion worth. Anyone else can spend the same amount and get the same advantage. 3. Except when you consider that there are only so many orbital slots that can be maintained. (see 1 above as well). If Bill manages to launch N satellites and N leaves N/2 orbital slots available for other uses, then, it's pretty hard to launch another N satellites at any cost. I do not think that the ITU allocates orbital slots except for geostationary satellites (not even 24 hour inclined orbits, such as are so useful for satellite transmissions to cars). So, if you want to launch a Teledesic or Iridium clone, you can, assuming your credit cards are good for a few billion $. Frequency assignment is, of course, another matter. If he already has the satellites and is providing the service other people want at a low price, then other competitors will lose. But so what? Consumers win. And competition doesn't exist to benefit the competitors. snip Owen Marshall -- If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably a forgery.
RE: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved
Maybe they should? Or at least provide a database that is signed so that people can check what is getting announced vs what was really allocated at least off line. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Gucker Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:06 PM To: Alain Hebert Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCO - 30h+ of route flapping unresolved snip . ARIN will not step in here. They allocate resources, they do not police or enforce those resources. charles
RE: What do we mean when we say competition? (was: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill])
--On November 16, 2005 4:23:20 AM -0800 David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal, or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure. As such, I think we should accept that monopoly and limit the monopoly zone to that area (MPOE-B-Box or MPEO-MDF) and prevent an unfair advantage by separating the management of that section of infrastructure from the service providers offering services which use said infrastructure. This is the same create a free market through extensive regulation that has created the disaster we have now. Any last mile technology whose cost of deployment can only be justified by the value of a monopoly on its deployment just won't be deployed in this model. That's not a free market. This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very bad one. But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100 years when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are now by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time and make no sense at all now. The model we have now is a certain amount of facilities from a given center to each residential unit within that centers serving area. For any form of terrestrial facilities, I don't see many alternatives to that model. I don't see how you plan to change that model. Please explain to me what the alternative model for deploying last-mile terrestrial facilities is. As long as we are stuck with that model, I don't see how you will ever get to a point where parallel facilities are cost effective to deploy, and, I don't think that's necessary to get them deployed. The reality is that a monopoly on the facilities isn't required to make them cost effective to deploy, but, it is unlikely to ever be cost effective to deploy parallel facilities to create competition. This is the natural monopoly scenario of which I speak. If such facilities would never be deployed under said model, then, why do we have: The golden gate bridge The bay bridge The Carquinez straits bridge The new Carquinez straits bridge The Interstate Highway system Residential Telephone service without party lines CATV Realistically, for last-mile base infrastructure, there are really only a few options today. Co-ax, UTP, and Fiber. A carrier neutral monopoly provider of these base facilities in a given serving area (and nothing says the same monopoly has to run all three) could serve multiple providers of just about any possible service. If we come up with a new terrestrial delivery method which has sufficient promise, I'm betting it won't be that hard to get it deployed. Fiber, however, scales pretty far. A single DWDM pair to the home really is a pretty large amount of bandwidth. We'll have many years of warning on superior technology as it will have to be well and truly deployed in the backbone prior to any need for it at the edge. Had we done this twenty years ago, the last mile would be dialup and billions of public dollars would have been spent to create and maintain an irrelevent technology. Meanwhile, the newer technologies wouldn't be deployed. Nope... That shows me how much you truly don't understand how little I'm talking about monopolizing. The UTP between the MPOE and the MDF can be used to serve POTS, ISDN, DSL, DS0, T1, and other services. Since any service provider could put any equipment they wanted at the ends of any of those wire pairs, paying the monopoly maintainer only for the lease of the dry copper pair, we would have seen a much more rapid deployment of ISDN and DSL because the RBOCs would not have had any power to delay it. We would have seen multiple providers competing for PSTN service on an equal footing. We might have seen providers offering true T1 services at residential pricing. This, at least on a theoretical level creates a carrier-neutral party managing the monopoly portion while maximizing and levelling the playing field in all other areas. A carrier-netural party may not be technology neutral, business model neutral, or neutral in many ways that may turn out to be important. As I see it, you give up on everything that's important from the very first step. What if a non-carrier neutral last mile turns out to be the scheme most people really want when it's offered to them? What technology... This is literally just the dumbest layer 1 part of the network. It's Wire or Fiber. There aren't really any other options. I don't care if we create a monopoly for each of these technologies. Since all they can do is lease an unlit/unpowered piece of wire or fiber from a serving center to a building MPOE, and, nothing else, and they are not allowed to discriminate about what equipment, technology, service, etc. the
Re: Issue AS and Subnet Announcment on BGP - Conflict with a major TelCo - RESOLVED
Hi, 1. Get the peers involved. We got help from bigger players than them. 2. Get more specific announcement of the subnets in question. Be a good netadmin, don't leave them for too long... 3. Get your management involved. They can call upon legal means of making it happen. Remember to keep the names of the tech/admin you've talk too. Worked for us... Also 4. ARIN could re-assign the subnet to a new AS, they where very eager too help but we didn't need to do it. Have fun... Alain Hebert wrote: Hi, A. Yeap we got the ok B. I used /21 instead C. Once that TelCo stop being a child we'll be back to /20, I'll like to keep it clean. FYI: We had excellent support from the peers of that TelCo, so the matters should be resolved today and the subnet back to be announced in his origial form. Have fun... Blaine Christian wrote: J On Nov 16, 2005, at 12:15 AM, Alain Hebert wrote: Thanks. ( There is more interesting details but I will reserve myself. (; ) We're already working on making contact with the upstreams, but you're right I forgot about making more specific announcement. Thanks again. Just don't be too surprised if... A. Your vendors blocks more specifics from you. B. No one listens to your more specifics because they are TOO specific. C. You contribute just a little bit more to the de-aggregation of the Internet (tongue in cheek). Regards, Blaine -- Alain Hebert[EMAIL PROTECTED] PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netfax 514-990-9443
the future of the net
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
Re: the future of the net
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understand? All signs point to yes. You can just call me Netstradamus. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
David Barak wrote: --- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price which is two to three times what it should be costing and the provider is enjoying the ability to do this because nobody else is in the market space? I'm confused. Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the current providers were keeping priced artificially LOW. They are keeping prices artificially low now, to drive out the competition. They will raise prices once they have no competition, as monopoly companies always have done in the past. Standard free market behavior is for a large company to cut prices (when they can, when they have income from some other source to afford this tactic) to drive the competition out of business. Then once they have a monopoly to raise prices (and thus profits). Check out the price for Microsoft software over the years. As their products each became a de facto monopoly in their market the prices went WAY up. When the product has competition they lower the price (or give the software away free - bundled with their monopoly OS) until they drive the competition out of business (IE versus Navigator). The history of Standard Oil Company is the reason we have anti-trust laws today to try to prevent monopoly businesses from anti-competitive behavior. Standard Oil would lower oil prices in a new market until they drove out the competition, and then raise oil prices once they had a monopoly and use the profits from those raised prices in that market to subsidize the lower price in another market where they were busy driving out the competition. Does this sound familiar? Ida Tarbell's book _The History of the Standard Oil Company_ is a great place to learn about this in depth. It has been edited into a briefer version (256 pages in paperback versus over 800 in the original 2-part hardbound editions) for today's busy readers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0486428214/ jc
Re: the future of the net
On 11/16/05, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understand? Allsigns point to yes. Perfect example; don't believe everything you read :) Man, looks like we have another addition to the net.kooks list. -Steve -- -Steve
Re: the future of the net
Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... Warren On Nov 16, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understand? All signs point to yes. You can just call me Netstradamus. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e- gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC) -- With Feudalism, it's your Count that votes.
Re: the future of the net
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Kumari wri tes: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. Same here. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: the future of the net
Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy
Someone from nic.net registrar please contact me off-list
Thanks Evaldo Gardenali
Re: the future of the net
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy
Re: the future of the net
Here's a copy of the article: http://209.218.71.2/lj/savingthenet.htm On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy -- Bubba Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] CityNet LLC http://www.citynetinfo.com/
Re: the future of the net
and it still is in mine the print edition doesn't have clickable links, but is also a fine resource. --bill On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy
Re: the future of the net
Seems to be back up now. On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:17:45AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and it still is in mine the print edition doesn't have clickable links, but is also a fine resource. --bill On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml IMS and an Internet Economic Business Model at: http://cookreport.com/14.09.shtml = On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy -- Bubba Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] CityNet LLC http://www.citynetinfo.com/
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
--- JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Barak wrote: --- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price which is two to three times what it should be costing and the provider is enjoying the ability to do this because nobody else is in the market space? I'm confused. Earlier in this thread you were arguing that the current providers were keeping priced artificially LOW. They are keeping prices artificially low now, to drive out the competition. They will raise prices once they have no competition, as monopoly companies always have done in the past. Standard free market behavior is for a large company to cut prices (when they can, when they have income from some other source to afford this tactic) to drive the competition out of business. Then once they have a monopoly to raise prices (and thus profits). Check out the price for Microsoft software over the years. As their products each became a de facto monopoly in their market the prices went WAY up. Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209 Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689 Windows XP price (now) - $199. Office 2003 (now) - $399. Want to try that again? The problems most people have with microsoft's monopoly status have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of the software which forms the basis of their monopoly (windows + office), but rather their willingness to use the profits from them to subsidize other losing ventures to drive out other competitors. The argument regarding ILECs is reversed. I appreciate the citation of Standard Oil, but it is a fallacy to think that there is a one-to-one mapping between SO and any/all of the ILECs. Assertions that monopolies do X and they're bad, and we know that Y will eventually do bad because they're a monopoly are circular. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209 Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689 Windows XP price (now) - $199. Office 2003 (now) - $399. Want to try that again? Yes... Here's some more accurate data: Windows 3.1 price $49 Windows 3.1.1 price $99 Windows 95 (Personal) price $59 Windows 98 (Personal) price $99 Windows ME (Home) price $99 Windows NT WS price $99 Windows 2000 Pro price $299 Windows XP Pro Price $399 If you're going to use list prices, use list prices all the way through. The above represent, to the best of my knowledge, M$ retail pricing for the lowest level of their client version of their OS available at the time. I confess I haven't followed pricing on M$ Office, but, I'm willing to bet that an apples-to-apples comparison would reveal similar results. Finally, the price of the client software is actually not the primary problem with M$ monopolistic pricing. It is the back-end software where they really are raising the prices. Compare NT Server to 2K or XP Server or Advanced Server. XP AS is nearly double 2000 AS last time I looked. The problems most people have with microsoft's monopoly status have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of the software which forms the basis of their monopoly (windows + office), but rather their willingness to use the profits from them to subsidize other losing ventures to drive out other competitors. Actually, it's both. The argument regarding ILECs is reversed. I appreciate the citation of Standard Oil, but it is a fallacy to think that there is a one-to-one mapping between SO and any/all of the ILECs. True. What is the point? Assertions that monopolies do X and they're bad, and we know that Y will eventually do bad because they're a monopoly are circular. Statements like In the past, monopolies have done X, and, the results of X are bad. Since Y is a monopoly, we can expect them to do X as well, with similar negative results. are not circular. They are attempting to learn from history rather than repeat it. There are a number of monopoly ILECs in the US which engage regularly in anticompetitive practices and use their ownership of the LMI to reduce competition, delay innovation, and, provide less than acceptable service to their subscribers. If you don't believe this, please look through the records of almost any PUC in the country. Since that is the case, I cannot believe that preserving such a monopoly on LMI is a good thing. Since the market is risky to deploy LMI once, you will have a hard time that the market exists to pay for multiple copies of a given LMI in order to support competition. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpIxcungL4MH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
To : David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc : nanog@merit.edu Attchmnt: Subject : Re: What do we mean when we say competition? - Message Text - On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, David Barak wrote: Windows * prices - $??? Slackware in 98 - A few hours downloading. The problems most people have with microsoft's monopoly status have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of the software which forms the basis of their monopoly (windows + office), but rather their willingness to use the profits from them to subsidize other losing ventures to drive out other competitors. My qualm with Microsoft's software scheme is just that the pricing breakdown on a business level coupled with the fact that I still can't get over an MS salesgoon telling me that if I purchased exchange I would have to purchase additional space to use it. Additional space? But I have a 1/2 tb array?... Well (said the salesgoon) Doesn't matter how big your drive is you're only allocated X amount of space... Thankfully I was able to use great stuff like Dot Project and a slew of other OpenSource products to get things running without having to sell my soul for broken windows. Assertions that monopolies do X and they're bad, and we know that Y will eventually do bad because they're a monopoly are circular. Studies have already shown the evil that m(en)onopolies do: // QUOTED FROM A SAVED ARTICLE I READ The standard economic case against monopoly is that, with the same cost structure, a monopoly supplier will produce at a lower output and charge a higher price than a competitive industry. This leads to a net loss of economic welfare and efficiency because price is driven above marginal cost - leading to allocative inefficiency. // Outside of that, most people as history has also show have the tendency to only stay kicked for so long before something kicks them out of their rut leading into some form of revolt (for lack of a better word on 3 hours sleep). I'm more concerned with Oligopolies creeping up slowly than I am with MS nowadays (Yahoo+eBay+Google+INSERT_BANK_HERE). Oligopolies go unnoticed for quite a while until damage is far more heavier than anything I can envision MS doing. Level3 + Cogento + Focal + TimeWarner + Cox = Nightmare That would be a A bigger nightmare than anything MS would be able to spit out of their Redmond stable. What ILEC's and CLEC's have to offer cannot be replaced by screaming geeks hooked on too many Starbuck's Grande Black Eyes, writing code for free under INSERT_YOUR_LICENSE_HERE. =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89 http://mo.fscker.com :: Obscurity through Insecurity I know what I have given you. I do not know what you have received -- Antonio Porchia
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209 Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689 Windows XP price (now) - $199. Office 2003 (now) - $399. Want to try that again? Yes... Here's some more accurate data: Windows 3.1 price $49 Windows 3.1.1 price $99 Windows 95 (Personal) price $59 Windows 98 (Personal) price $99 Windows ME (Home) price $99 Windows NT WS price $99 Windows 2000 Pro price $299 Windows XP Pro Price $399 If you're going to use list prices, use list prices all the way through. The above represent, to the best of my knowledge, M$ retail pricing for the lowest level of their client version of their OS available at the time. You're mistaken. http://www.theosfiles.com/os_windows/ospg_w98.htm http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22pcid=a9d2c448-eb05-4a2b-a062-9c711c533e0ctype=ovr http://www.theosfiles.com/os_windows/ospg_wxp_pro.htm So it goes from 209 to either 199 or 299 depending on whether you want home or pro. That's hardly an egregious markup for a better OS, several years later. I confess I haven't followed pricing on M$ Office, but, I'm willing to bet that an apples-to-apples comparison would reveal similar results. http://www.computerwriter.com/archives/1997/cw230197.htm#prices http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/howtobuy/compare.mspx I was doing a similar apples-to-apples comparison. Look, just accept that not all data points will line up with your assertions - find some others instead. If there are so many, then there have to be better examples than these. Finally, the price of the client software is actually not the primary problem with M$ monopolistic pricing. It is the back-end software where they really are raising the prices. Compare NT Server to 2K or XP Server or Advanced Server. XP AS is nearly double 2000 AS last time I looked. Microsoft hardly has a monopoly on servers. If their prices are too high, use something else. The argument regarding ILECs is reversed. I appreciate the citation of Standard Oil, but it is a fallacy to think that there is a one-to-one mapping between SO and any/all of the ILECs. True. What is the point? Standard Oil is a strawman argument. The ILECs are dissimilar in nature and behavior from Standard Oil. An assertion otherwise requires evidence. Assertions that monopolies do X and they're bad, and we know that Y will eventually do bad because they're a monopoly are circular. Statements like In the past, monopolies have done X, and, the results of X are bad. Since Y is a monopoly, we can expect them to do X as well, with similar negative results. are not circular. They are attempting to learn from history rather than repeat it. History doesn't repeat itself. Historians do. -unknown (to me at least) Don't fight the last war, and especially don't fight it in a way which will impede future innovation. Since the market is risky to deploy LMI once, you will have a hard time that the market exists to pay for multiple copies of a given LMI in order to support competition. If there's money in it, then someone will fill the need. I still haven't seen the justification for treating layer-1 last mile differently from layer-2 last-mile, or for that matter layer-3 last mile. Why shouldn't the city just say everyone hop on our citywide IP network, and then everyone can compete at higher layers of the stack? David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Someone from nic.net registrar please contact me off-list
Thanks Evaldo Gardenali You know, if people are going to post here as a paging service, it would be nice to put some indication as to why - perhaps the rest of us can assist more quickly? 9 times out of 10 we can since it's usually operator/user error and not necessarily the providers issue. At least that's my experience with $doofus to the white lobby phone. YMMV. -M
Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
--On November 16, 2005 9:25:29 PM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209 Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689 Windows XP price (now) - $199. Office 2003 (now) - $399. Want to try that again? Yes... Here's some more accurate data: Windows 3.1 price $49 Windows 3.1.1 price $99 Windows 95 (Personal) price $59 Windows 98 (Personal) price $99 Windows ME (Home) price $99 Windows NT WS price $99 Windows 2000 Pro price $299 Windows XP Pro Price $299 Just because I didn't quote the emails from my history, does not mean these are not accurate. These are the list prices quoted by vendors of M$ products over the years in my mail history file. It's not an assertion, it's actual data. True, they are not the street or discounted prices, but, they are the MSRP. So it goes from 209 to either 199 or 299 depending on whether you want home or pro. That's hardly an egregious markup for a better OS, several years later. Without getting into the argument about which version of Windows is or is not an improvement, it's certainly the most expensive OS in the market today: MacOS X: $99 (List) -- Includes HTTP, DNS, DHCP servers and other basic essentials like SMTP and LDAP servers, etc. http://www.apple.com Windows XP Pro $299 (List) -- Includes HTTP (sort of), but, no ability to be DNS, DHCP, SMTP, or, LDAP server without additional software. http://www.microsoft.com (pricing link) Solaris x86 $49.95 (CD) -- $9.95 DVD, $0 download http://www.sun.com (downloads-get solaris 10) Full Server or desktop Version Red Hat Enterprise Linux Basic $179 -- Includes all Server software, but, missing some GUIs for managing, limited support. http://www.redhat.com/en_us/USA/rhel/compare/client Fedora Core $0 -- Full server/desktop version http://fedora.redhat.com FreeBSD $0 -- Full server/desktop version http://www.freebsd.org So... Microsoft has a monopoly on Windows and the basic OS costs you $299 with virtually no server capabilities. In the POSIX-style OS world, where you have multiple competitors, prices range from $0 to $179. Next? I was doing a similar apples-to-apples comparison. Look, just accept that not all data points will line up with your assertions - find some others instead. If there are so many, then there have to be better examples than these. True, but, this one does. There are multiple ways to skin a cat, and, multiple versions of Windows pricing. Any way you slice it, MicroSoft remains the most expensive OS in the market. Everyone elses OS prices have come down since the days of Win 3.1, Microsoft's have gone up (about 600% -- $49 to $299). Finally, the price of the client software is actually not the primary problem with M$ monopolistic pricing. It is the back-end software where they really are raising the prices. Compare NT Server to 2K or XP Server or Advanced Server. XP AS is nearly double 2000 AS last time I looked. Microsoft hardly has a monopoly on servers. If their prices are too high, use something else. Microsoft has a monopoly on Active Directory servers. Microsoft has a monopoly on Exchange servers. If you are unfortunate enough to need either of these things (I thank my lucky stars every day that I am not), you have to buy them from Micr0$0ft. The argument regarding ILECs is reversed. I appreciate the citation of Standard Oil, but it is a fallacy to think that there is a one-to-one mapping between SO and any/all of the ILECs. True. What is the point? Standard Oil is a strawman argument. The ILECs are dissimilar in nature and behavior from Standard Oil. An assertion otherwise requires evidence. I think that the anti-competitive behavior of SBC and that of SOCA are, indeed, very similar. If you prefer a more similar example, we can compare Comcast and SBC, or, perhaps you would prefer to compare Pacific Bell and US West (prior to them all becoming part of SBC). Pick your poison, there's certainly a record of anti-competitive practices available. History doesn't repeat itself. Historians do. -unknown (to me at least) Unknown and untrue... History is replete with examples of history repeating itself. In many ways, WWI and WWII are examples of history repeating itself. Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq are examples. Sure, slightly different results, but, if you roll dice more than a couple of times, you usually get different numbers, too. Many Many Many similarities in costs, casualties, efficacy, etc. If you want closer examples: US Involvement in Viet Nam vs. Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. VERY similar results all the way around. Don't fight the last war, and especially don't fight it in a way which will impede future innovation. Agreed. Instead of granting further monopoly positions and first-arrival advantages and again allowing the first provider into the market to prevent all future comers, let's avoid the fight and separate the LMI from the overlying
Re: STILL Paging Google...
Ok, the bug is still there. Received replies from helpful folks who missed various parts of my posts. I'll stop posting about this now; it is indeed a bit OT. As I said in my initial post: I'm looking for a fix, not a workaround, and again: See http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html The above page says that User-agent: Googlebot Disallow: /*? will block all standard-looking dynamic content, i.e. URLs with ? in them. On 11/16/05 11:44 AM, Michael Loftis sent forth electrons to convey: I think that maybe googlebot parses robots.txt in order, so it's seeing your USer-Agent: * line before it's more specific line and matching that. I'm not saying googlebot is right doing that, just saying maybe that's what it's doing. Try reordering your file? Could be, but their documentation, as I mentioned, specifically says otherwise. Michael Dillon wrote: [put dynamic content in cgi-bin and have robots.txt block it] ... When something doesn't work, the correct operational response is to fix it. AGAIN, I'm just asking Google to comply with the documentation they provide! In other words, Googlebot is broken; it doesn't do what its documentation it claims it will do. The correct operational response is for Google to fix it. Whether they change the code or the documentation is their choice. I'd say allowing * to be special is a change worth making, despite the robustness principle. (FYI, IETF does from time to time knowingly make changes that are not backwards-compatible.) Oh, and a ? in an URL has been a near-certain sign of dynamic content for a decade Oh, and I'm not a MediaWiki developer... Niels Bakker wrote: robots.txt is about explicitly spidering your site; Google will still follow links from outside towards your website and index pages linked that way.[...] No, the robot.txt is being violated. There aren't ~40,000 links to the site. Only around 130, according to http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awiki.fastmail.fm On 11/16/05 8:49 AM, Mike Damm sent forth electrons to convey: Could you please give me the URL to your robots.txt? It was implied, below. (Oh, and they removed it from my webmasterworld forum post; it was in there initially.) On 11/15/05, Matthew Elvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awiki.fastmail.fm) http://wiki.fastmail.fm/robots.txt On 11/16/05 7:44 AM, Bill Weiss sent forth electrons to convey: I attempted to respond on Nanog, but I don't have posting privs there it seems. What I tried to send then: http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/norobots.html Specifically, http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#robotstxt covers the problem you're having. To paraphrase: you don't get wildcards in the Disallow section. Fall back on using the META tags that do that sort of thing, or reorg your website to make it possible without wildcards. If you would forward this to the list for me, I would appreciate it. Bill: you're right, except that Google has defined and documented an extension, as I mentioned. On 11/15/05 5:23 PM, William Yardley sent forth electrons to convey: On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 04:56:12PM -0800, Matthew Elvey wrote: Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, instead of way down. Did you try [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've had good luck there in the past with crawl related issues. Yup. Emailed 'em on my last post. Also, there were some folks from Google at the last NANOG meeting - look near the top of the attendee list, and there is someone whom I believe works on security stuff - googling should turn up her email address pretty quickly. Thanks. I'll hit some google folks directly. I just know someone in the gmail area-pretty far removed. --On November 15, 2005 4:56:12 PM -0800 Matthew Elvey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up, instead of way down. Why am I bugging NANOG with this? Well, I'm sure if Googlebot keeps ignoring my robots.txt file, thereby hammering the server and facilitating s pam, they're doing the same with a google other sites. (Well, ok, not a google, but you get my point.) On 11/14/05 2:18 PM, Coyle, Brian sent forth electrons to convey: Just thinking out loud... Have you confirmed the IP addresses of the Googlebot entries in your log actually belong to Google? /paranoia :) The google search URL I posted shows that google is hitting the site. There are results in there that point to pages that postdate the robots.txt that should have blocked 'em. (http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awiki.fastmail.fm) On 11/14/05 2:09 PM, Jeff Rosowski sent forth electrons to convey: Are you trying to block everything except the main page? I know to block everything ... No; me too. See http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html The above
Re: the future of the net
Cc: nanog@merit.edu From: Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: the future of the net Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:08:26 -0500 To: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very good very rich ...filled with links and yeah now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache. I just read the page - and have a copy if you want... Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be very afraid. On Nov 16, 2005, at 8:53 PM, Randy Bush wrote: Oh, the irony - all I get is: Access denied You are not authorized to access this page. I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it it now... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673 same here not half an hour after i read it at that url i guess the sbc ceo did not like the article. too bad, as the first third was *very* well framed, if a bit on the hyperbolic. perhaps someone with connections at linuxjournal can sort this out for us. i'm a bsd user. randy - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision. - Benjamin Franklin The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
