Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Josh Reynolds]

So focus more on the importance of peering to help unburden your transit
costs. Transport will be what it is until you can do something about that.

Peer directly with the major content providers and your costs can very
likely go down.

For those of you where locality or other factors exclude easy peering, that
seems to be the next step in your region. Form an IX :)

On Dec 16, 2017 5:37 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not
> demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They
> want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content
> providers are still in the driver's seat.
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie  com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>>
>>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the
>>> consumer's bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with
>>> usage growth?
>>
>>
>> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based
>> on how much more people are using.
>>
>>
>>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>>> inflation, etc etc.
>>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>>
>>
>> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is
>> more expensive now.
>>
>>>
>>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship.
>>> Wait until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>>
>>
>> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon
>> are definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence
>> the huge fight over NN.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Josh Reynolds]

Infrastructure, overheard, maintenance, bandwidth. Should be covered and
distributed by the customers' monthly fees and any installation fees. If
it's not, how are you still in business and still expanding?


On Dec 16, 2017 4:10 PM, "Jason McKemie" 
wrote:

> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>
>> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of
>> bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
>> From: "Jason McKemie" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson > [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
>> entirely.
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
>> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown > ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>>
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jason McKemie
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>> perception.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>> up the cost of everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+In
>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/
>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL
>> 
>> ]
>> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.
>> com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
>> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtu
>> be.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> From: "Ron M." 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>
>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Mathew Howard" 
>> To: "af" 
>>
>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>> they'd have to deal with.
>>  Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it..

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Adam Moffett]

What do you see as the "associated costs"?
I agree that the direct cost of bandwidth is not the big deal.  For most 
of us I'd bet it's a single digit percentage of cost.  The problem I see 
is if you built assuming you'd get 5 or 10 years out of equipment and 
then have to upgrade it within 3 years.  Then you either have to explain 
your increased Capex to unhappy investors or explain poor performance to 
the unhappy customers.


I just worked on a FTTx design where we planned around 25% consumption 
increases year over year.  Projecting what that's going to mean down the 
road was a bit monocle popping.  I'm planning (I hope) correctly for it 
now.  If I was doing this in 2006 I would have had a different outlook 
and I probably would have been wrong.


I don't see any relevance to NN, and it has never crossed my mind to try 
and charge a fee for access to streaming (or anything of the like) but 
it does have a bearing on price for the consumer.



-- Original Message --
From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 12/16/2017 5:45:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage 
and associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the 
same?


Jared



Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, 
mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> wrote:Why shouldn't 
people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth has gone 
down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.


Jared



Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]"; 
mailto:af@afmug.com]>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet 
service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the 
bandwidth now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]> 
wrote:


I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver 
to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if 
they say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and 
block you entirely.


On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]> 
wrote:


I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it 
would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]> 
wrote:


I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  
Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off 
hours.




From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly 
rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb 
that cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad 
ISP perception.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:


It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really 
drive up the cost of everything.




From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing 
Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]

[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]

[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
The Brothers 
WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]

[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]]



-

[AFMUG] OT stupid and sad

[Chuck McCown]

Prairie Home Companion is now called “Live From Here”
I raised my 8 kids on that show.  

I guess they need to toss all art made by all womanizers.  
They should go into MOMA and anywhere else they are displayed and destroy the 
murals by Diego Rivera.

Toss all the James Bond and anything else Ian Fleming wrote, anything with Jack 
Nicholson in it.  
How long before the pendulum starts to swing back.
 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[chuck]

If you build it they will come.  One of my most popular packages now is 250 
Mbps.  (on fiber of course)
What do you do with 250 Mbps.  I dunno.  Unless you are a radiologist.  We have 
folks buying 500 and 1 Gig all day long too.   I think it is 
status/bragging/market cache/ignorance.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:59 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, bandwidth costs for us may have dropped, but before Netflix, most people 
were perfectly happy with a 256k connection, and even with the bandwidth cost 
being lower, radios being better and everything else that's happened since, it 
was still cheaper and easier to get a 256k connection to the end user back then 
than it is to get a 10 meg connection to them now. 

But on the other hand, there's pretty large percentage of our customers that 
I'm fairly sure would cancel service and just use their smart phones for 
everything if it wasn't for the likes of Netflix.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jason McKemie 
 wrote:



  On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

"Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
  Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's 
bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?

  Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on 
how much more people are using. 


> Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, 
inflation, etc etc.
  At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other costs. 
So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?

  Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more 
expensive now. 


> This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while 
recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
> basically the reverse of what they currently do.
  I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait 
until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)

  I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are 
definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the huge 
fight over NN.



Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, bandwidth costs for us may have dropped, but before Netflix, most
people were perfectly happy with a 256k connection, and even with the
bandwidth cost being lower, radios being better and everything else that's
happened since, it was still cheaper and easier to get a 256k connection to
the end user back then than it is to get a 10 meg connection to them now.

But on the other hand, there's pretty large percentage of our customers
that I'm fairly sure would cancel service and just use their smart phones
for everything if it wasn't for the likes of Netflix.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>
>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
>> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?
>
>
> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
> how much more people are using.
>
>
>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>> inflation, etc etc.
>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>
>
> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
> expensive now.
>
>>
>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
>> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>
>
> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are
> definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
> huge fight over NN.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jared
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Lewis Bergman]

The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not
demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They
want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content
providers are still in the driver's seat.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>
>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
>> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?
>
>
> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
> how much more people are using.
>
>
>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>> inflation, etc etc.
>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>
>
> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
> expensive now.
>
>>
>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
>> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>
>
> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are
> definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
> huge fight over NN.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jared
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?


Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
how much more people are using.


> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
> inflation, etc etc.
>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?


Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
expensive now.

>
> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)


I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are
definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
huge fight over NN.


>
>
> Jared
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

"Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
  Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's bill, 
given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?

> Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, 
> etc etc.
  At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other costs. So, 
tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill? 

> This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while recouping 
> that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix - 
> basically the reverse of what they currently do. 
  I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait until 
Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[chuck]

What upstream/edge provider would pay a bill for access like that?  In the 
telco world, the equivalent edge providers have to pay the last mile carrier 
due to tariffs.  But we don’t have tariffs and are now even farther away from 
that world.

It would take a consortium of the largest carriers to force something like that 
to happen, and the blowback would be enormous.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. Then there is 
more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, etc etc. 

It's not something I believe in applying on my network, but I can completely 
understand why an ISP would think that it is reasonable to somehow meter and 
charge upstream providers. This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the 
consumer while recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix 
- basically the reverse of what they currently do. Just playing the part of 
devil's advocate I suppose.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

  Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and 
associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?

  Jared
   
   

  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
  There are other costs besides bandwidth.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> 
wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of 
bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.

  Jared
   
   

  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
  To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]"; mailto:af@afmug.com]>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
  I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]>
 wrote:

  I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to 
them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  
What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
   
  On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]>
 wrote:
   
  I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]>
 wrote:

  I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does 
not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

   

  From: Jason McKemie
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
  To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
   
  IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate 
that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or 
raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

  It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

   

  From: Mike Hammett
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
  To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
   

  A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
   

  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing 
Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
  
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
  Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
  
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
  The Brothers 
WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]
  
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/thebro

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. Then there
is more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, etc etc.

It's not something I believe in applying on my network, but I can
completely understand why an ISP would think that it is reasonable to
somehow meter and charge upstream providers. This would also allow the ISP
to charge less to the consumer while recouping that money behind the scenes
from the likes of Netflix - basically the reverse of what they currently
do. Just playing the part of devil's advocate I suppose.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

> Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and
> associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  fiber...@mail.com]> wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the
> same? The cost of bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix
> streaming launched.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie"  j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
> To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]"; mailto:af@afmug.com
> ]>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson  [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com
> [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]> wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
> ][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]> wrote:
>
> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
>
>
> From: Jason McKemie
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>
> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
>
>
> From: Mike Hammett
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.
> com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+
> IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.
> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://
> twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://
> plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsD
> eKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-
> computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-
> ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.
> linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://
> twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-
> exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://
> www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]
> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.
> youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/
> thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
> ]
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: "Ron M." mailto:ccie4...@gmail.com]>
> To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
> accounting and charge the upstream content

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and 
associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> 
wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of 
bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]"; mailto:af@afmug.com]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]>
 wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]>
 wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]>
 wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
The Brothers 
WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]]


 


From: "Ron M." mailto:ccie4...@gmail.com]>
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com]> wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!
 
On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access 
to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happ

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I agree, but that puts you in the big bad ISP category in some people's
opinion. Many people are not firmly in touch with reality though.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Just because someone wants something for a price doesn't mean you need to
> sell it for that price.  I see increasing demand as an opportunity.   As
> people cut the tv cord, we get to capture some of that additional revenue.
> Of course, with the end of NN, all bets are off as monopoly players we
> compete with may start squeezing additional revenue out of content
> providers to keep their subscriber costs down.  Doubt it though as they are
> greedy.
>
> In any case, it seems to me that bandwidth demand doubles every three
> years while cost per mb is cut in half every three years.  This seems to
> apply to everything but real estate and power.  Any increase above this
> baseline is an opportunity for me to sell higher priced plans.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason McKemie  com> wrote:
>
> It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it
> just seems to be the vocal majority online.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver
>>> to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they
>>> say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block
>>> you entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it
>>> would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
 Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.

 *From:* Jason McKemie
 *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

 IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
 rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
 cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
 perception.

 On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ron M." 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
> THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>
> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <
> george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>
>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to
>> start charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, 
>> dude,
>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
>> we
>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I 
>> realized
>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>
>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge
>> for access to Faceboo

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth
> has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson  [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>
> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
>
>
> From: Jason McKemie
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
>
>
> From: Mike Hammett
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+
> IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.
> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.
> linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://
> twitter.com/mdwestix]
> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.
> youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: "Ron M." 
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>
> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: "af" 
>
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
> they'd have to deal with.
>  Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
> it on the lack of NN.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
> clarifying.
>
> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
> all the rules.
> Put a

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth has 
gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]> 
wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Ron M." 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup  wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!
 
On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access 
to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 

Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted to. 
Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with.
 Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll just 
keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN.

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.
 
The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from all the 
rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for you.  
They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
 
It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what would 
happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Carl Peterson]

Just because someone wants something for a price doesn't mean you need to sell 
it for that price.  I see increasing demand as an opportunity.   As people cut 
the tv cord, we get to capture some of that additional revenue.  Of course, 
with the end of NN, all bets are off as monopoly players we compete with may 
start squeezing additional revenue out of content providers to keep their 
subscriber costs down.  Doubt it though as they are greedy.  

In any case, it seems to me that bandwidth demand doubles every three years 
while cost per mb is cut in half every three years.  This seems to apply to 
everything but real estate and power.  Any increase above this baseline is an 
opportunity for me to sell higher priced plans.   

> On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason McKemie  
> wrote:
> 
> It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it 
> just seems to be the vocal majority online.
> 
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie 
>>  wrote:
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
>> before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
>> expect their internet bill to be the same.
>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson  
>>> wrote:
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to 
>>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say 
>>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you 
>>> entirely.  
>>> 
>>> 
 On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
  wrote:
 
 I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
 certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
 
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  
> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 
>  
> From: Jason McKemie
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>  
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly 
> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that 
> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP 
> perception.
> 
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really 
>> drive up the cost of everything. 
>>  
>> From: Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>  
>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Ron M." 
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>> 
>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP 
>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for 
>> carrying THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>> 
>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>  
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
>>>  wrote:
>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but 
>>> now we can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then 
>>> I realized he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is 
>>> doing. FUD dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>> 
>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
>>> Happen.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Mathew Howard" 
>>> To: "af" 
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>  
>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
>>> wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like 
>>> that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer 
>>> backlash they'd have to deal with.
>>> 
>>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
>>> they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or 
>>> else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they 
>>> don't like and blame it on 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it
just seems to be the vocal majority online.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
>> entirely.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
>> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>>
>>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>>
 It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
 logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
 up the cost of everything.

 *From:* Mike Hammett
 *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
 *To:* af@afmug.com
 *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

 A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.



 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions 
 
 
 
 
 Midwest Internet Exchange 
 
 
 
 The Brothers WISP 
 


 
 --
 *From: *"Ron M." 
 *To: *af@afmug.com
 *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

 What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
 traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
 THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)

 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <
 george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:

> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to
> start charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, 
> dude,
> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
> we
> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>
> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
> Happen.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really
> wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like
> that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer
> backlash they'd have to deal with.
>
> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it...
> they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else,
> they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like 
> and
> blame it on the lack of NN.
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett 
> wrote:
>
>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".
>> They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical
>> reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with
>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie  com> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>
>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>> perception.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>
>>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Ron M." 
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
>>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
>>> THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>>
>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup >> > wrote:
>>>
 One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
 charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
 seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
 can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
 he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
 tactics. IT'S A TRAP!

 On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

 Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
 access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
 Happen.


 -- Original Message --
 From: "Mathew Howard" 
 To: "af" 
 Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


 Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really
 wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like
 that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer
 backlash they'd have to deal with.

 Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it...
 they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else,
 they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and
 blame it on the lack of NN.

 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett 
 wrote:

> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".
> They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical
> reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with
> you, just clarifying.
>
> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded
> from all the rules.
> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>
> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Carl Peterson]

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  


> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
> 
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does 
>> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 
>>  
>> From: Jason McKemie
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>  
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate 
>> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or 
>> raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive 
>>> up the cost of everything. 
>>>  
>>> From: Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>  
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Ron M." 
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>> 
>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
>>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR 
>>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>> 
>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>  
 On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup  
 wrote:
 One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
 charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
 seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
 we can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I 
 realized he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD 
 dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
 
 On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
 Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
 access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
 Happen.
  
  
 -- Original Message --
 From: "Mathew Howard" 
 To: "af" 
 Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
  
 Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted 
 to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that 
 anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer 
 backlash they'd have to deal with.
 
 Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll 
 just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll 
 find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame 
 it on the lack of NN.
  
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical 
> reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with 
> you, just clarifying.
>  
> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from 
> all the rules.
> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for 
> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>  
> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothingchanges.
>  
>  
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
> To: "af@afmug.com" 
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>  
> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J  
> So it really did’ent do anything. 
> 
>  
> 
> Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
> 
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, 
> MTCINE
> 
>  
> 
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
> 
> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
> 
> Office: 314-735-0270
> 
> E-Mail: dmburg...@lin

[AFMUG] OT The Pentagon’s Secret Search for UFOs - POLITICO Magazine

[Jaime Solorza]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
Jaime Solorza

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[Jay Weekley]

It was "a long time ago, in a galaxy far... "

Chuck McCown wrote:
I found it fascinating that way in the future, they still use through 
hole components in circuit boards.

*From:* Steve Jones
*Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:24 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie
I sent 6 kids age 11 to 13 up to watch it last night unattended, must 
have been pretty good cause i didnt get any call from the theater to 
pick them up for getting kicked out. If its good enough to keep a 
group of new to testosterone hooligans focused it must be good

On Dec 16, 2017 9:16 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

Good, I got a couple or pet peeves, but all in all It was good

Gino A. Villarini
@gvillarini

*//*

*/Gino A. Villarini/*

President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists
 wrote:


I paid and I thought it was really good! :-)

Jeff Broadwick
CTIconnect
312-205-2519  Office
574-220-7826  Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave
me free tickets.



 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[CBB - Jay Fuller]

my dad found if fascinating in the 24th century they hadn't cured baldness.
i didn't want to explain to him that apparently some women liked bald men

(star trek reference)

  - Original Message - 
  From: Chuck McCown 
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie


  I found it fascinating that way in the future, they still use through hole 
components in circuit boards.  

  From: Steve Jones 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:24 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

  I sent 6 kids age 11 to 13 up to watch it last night unattended, must have 
been pretty good cause i didnt get any call from the theater to pick them up 
for getting kicked out. If its good enough to keep a group of new to 
testosterone hooligans focused it must be good

  On Dec 16, 2017 9:16 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

Good, I got a couple or pet peeves, but all in all It was good


Gino A. Villarini 
@gvillarini






  Gino A. Villarini
 
  President 
  Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 




On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
wrote:


  I paid and I thought it was really good!  :-)


  Jeff Broadwick 
  CTIconnect

  312-205-2519 Office
  574-220-7826 Cell
  jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

  On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave me free 
tickets.  

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[Chuck McCown]

I found it fascinating that way in the future, they still use through hole 
components in circuit boards.  

From: Steve Jones 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:24 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

I sent 6 kids age 11 to 13 up to watch it last night unattended, must have been 
pretty good cause i didnt get any call from the theater to pick them up for 
getting kicked out. If its good enough to keep a group of new to testosterone 
hooligans focused it must be good

On Dec 16, 2017 9:16 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

  Good, I got a couple or pet peeves, but all in all It was good


  Gino A. Villarini 
  @gvillarini






Gino A. Villarini
   
President 
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968 




  On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  wrote:


I paid and I thought it was really good!  :-)


Jeff Broadwick 
CTIconnect

312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:


  It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave me free 
tickets.  

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[Steve Jones]

I sent 6 kids age 11 to 13 up to watch it last night unattended, must have
been pretty good cause i didnt get any call from the theater to pick them
up for getting kicked out. If its good enough to keep a group of new to
testosterone hooligans focused it must be good

On Dec 16, 2017 9:16 AM, "Gino A. Villarini"  wrote:

Good, I got a couple or pet peeves, but all in all It was good

Gino A. Villarini
@gvillarini





*Gino A. Villarini*
President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
wrote:

I paid and I thought it was really good!  :-)

Jeff Broadwick
CTIconnect
312-205-2519 <(312)%20205-2519> Office
574-220-7826 <(574)%20220-7826> Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:

It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave me free
tickets.

Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

[David Coudron]

Yes, those folks that are aware of it and what it should be used for, request 
that we set it up and we do.   However, for folks that don’t ask about it, we 
found out that we were getting more calls asking about the password (they lost 
the email stating what it was, misplaced any information we left with them, or 
forgot).   What typically happens is someone visits their place, wants to use 
the Guest network, and they can’t remember the password to give them since they 
don’t use it very often and that triggers a call to us.

We get fewer calls asking to set up Guest access than we do asking what the 
password was set up as.   We thought about printing labels and putting that on 
the router with the password for the Guest network for future reference but 
then we would have to use a standard password for all customers, which we 
didn’t want to do.   Using a standard password would probably be fine, but in 
some of our areas we have enough subscriber density that folks could literally 
drive down the road and get on everyone’s network.  It is just the Guest 
network, so likely not a big deal, but figured our customers wouldn’t want 
strangers doing that.  We could come up with a password scheme that uses part 
of the Mac address or something like that, but that is just more work for the 
technician to set up, or we would have to come up with some script trickery to 
automatically do it.For the few that ask for it, we found it was less work 
to not set it up by default and only do so for those that asked.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 
612-991-7474


From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:20 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

Most retail routers have done this for many years now. It shouldn't be 
surprising.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
Midwest Internet Exchange
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]
The Brothers WISP
[http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png][http://www.ics-il.com/images/youtubeicon.png]




From: "David Coudron" 
mailto:david.coud...@advantenon.com>>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:55:08 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers
We typically don’t do this unless specifically requested to do so by the 
customer.   We can set it up remotely since we provide Mikrotiks to all 
customers so we can always do it later without a site visit.   It seems like 
one more thing to educate the customer on unless they already know about it and 
request it.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 
612-991-7474



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

Cnmaestro doesnt do it the way i expected

On Dec 15, 2017 9:45 PM, "Josh Luthman" 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Does anyone do this at all?  Wondering if it makes any sense.  I know I'd like 
it at my house with the r200 routers as I don't want to give up my PSK to 
random people.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne 
St
Suite 
1337
Troy, OH 
45373

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
> *From:* Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:
>
>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>> up the cost of everything.
>>
>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>>
>>
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Ron M." 
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>
>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Mathew Howard" 
>>> To: "af" 
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>>> they'd have to deal with.
>>>
>>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
>>> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
>>> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
>>> it on the lack of NN.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".
 They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical
 reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with
 you, just clarifying.

 The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
 all the rules.
 Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
 you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

 It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
 would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
 pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


 -- Original Message --
 From: "Dennis Burgess" 
 To: "af@afmug.com" 
 Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
 Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


 NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
 So it really did’ent do anything.



 *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *

 MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
  –
 MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE



 For Wireless Hardware/R

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Chuck McCown]

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

  It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything.  

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Ron M." 
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


  What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)


  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup  
wrote:

One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!


On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

  Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "Mathew Howard" 
  To: "af" 
  Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that 
anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash 
they'd have to deal with.


Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, 
they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and 
blame it on the lack of NN.


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

  You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  
They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.

  The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded 
from all the rules.
  Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering 
for you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

  It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "Dennis Burgess" 
  To: "af@afmug.com" 
  Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose 
it.  J  So it really did’ent do anything.  



Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, 
MTCTCE, MTCINE



For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 

Office: 314-735-0270

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:

  
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html



  Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and 
will do so with impunity.



  These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how 
poorly granularity scales.



   

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown  wrote:

> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
>
>
> 
> --
> *From: *"Ron M." 
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>
> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
> wrote:
>
>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>
>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Mathew Howard" 
>> To: "af" 
>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>> they'd have to deal with.
>>
>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
>> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
>> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
>> it on the lack of NN.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
>>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
>>> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
>>> clarifying.
>>>
>>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>>> all the rules.
>>> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
>>> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>>>
>>> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
>>> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
>>> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
>>> So it really did’ent do anything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>>>
>>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
>>>  –
>>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>>>
>>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>>>
>>> Office: 314-735-0270 <%28314%29%20735-0270>
>>>
>>> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
>>> *To:* af 
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_
>>> n

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Chuck McCown]

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Ron M." 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup  wrote:

  One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!


  On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" 
To: "af" 
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted 
to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with.


  Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll 
just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN.


  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  
They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from 
all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for 
you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" 
To: "af@afmug.com" 
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  
J  So it really did’ent do anything.  



  Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 

  MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, 
MTCINE



  For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

  Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 

  Office: 314-735-0270

  E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
  To: af 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



  Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
 wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will 
do so with impunity.



These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how 
poorly granularity scales.



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird  
wrote:

  I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to 
put out a statement..



  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall  
wrote:

Yep, that is concise and effective



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. 
Villarini
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling! 



Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality 



   

Re: [AFMUG] OT: potcoin

[Jeremy]

Dennis Rodman is heavily involved with Potcoin.  They sponsored his last
trip to North Korea.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Carl Peterson 
wrote:

> Seems like a great idea but where does the money go?  It doesn't appear to
> be fiat backed like tether is supposed to be.  Is it just a fiat
> blockchain?  Speaking of which, whoever decided to call them "coins" was a
> marketing genius.  Seems intuitive now but if you think about what it
> really is, it is about as far from a coin as you can get.
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 9:04 AM, Cameron Crum  wrote:
>
>> Most banks won't deal with people in the "Business" so crypto currencies
>> are becoming the default currency (money laundering facility) for people
>> dealing drugs, legal or not. Guess someone just decided to stop hiding.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> as long as we are inserting digital OT currencies to bother the OT
>>> haters, I just came across this
>>> http://www.potcoin.com/
>>> Since bitcoin hasnt allowed me to play, Im guessing I should invest in
>>> some prison time
>>> no, really though, WTH is this all about?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
> 
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
> 
>
> (410) 637-3707
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mike Hammett]

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ron M."  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 



What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-) 

(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?) 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 



One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP! 


On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: 



Exactly. I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access to 
Facebook or charge for access to Netflix. Not. Going. To. Happen. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Mathew Howard" < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 


Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 






Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted to. 
Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with. 

Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll just 
keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN. 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management". They defined 
reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons rather than 
business reasons (paraphrased). Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying. 


The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from all the 
rules. 
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for you. 
They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules. 


It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what would 
happen. I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Dennis Burgess" < dmburg...@linktechs.net > 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 






NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it. J So it 
really did’ent do anything. 

Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE 

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net 
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 
Office: 314-735-0270 
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 


Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes... 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 





http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
 



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so with 
impunity. 



These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly 
granularity scales. 





On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I like this as well. I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a 
statement.. 





On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 




Yep, that is concise and effective 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 


What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling! 




Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality 



AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and 
individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken that promotes 
innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s 17 
years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates. The placement and removal of Net Neutrality rules have 
not and will not modify our pricing policy. We maintain our commitment to 
provide the fastest and most reliable serv

Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

[Mike Hammett]

Most retail routers have done this for many years now. It shouldn't be 
surprising. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "David Coudron"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:55:08 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers 



We typically don’t do this unless specifically requested to do so by the 
customer. We can set it up remotely since we provide Mikrotiks to all customers 
so we can always do it later without a site visit. It seems like one more thing 
to educate the customer on unless they already know about it and request it. 

David Coudron 
david.coud...@advantenon.com | Mobile: 612-991-7474 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:29 PM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers 


Cnmaestro doesnt do it the way i expected 



On Dec 15, 2017 9:45 PM, "Josh Luthman" < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > wrote: 



Does anyone do this at all? Wondering if it makes any sense. I know I'd like it 
at my house with the r200 routers as I don't want to give up my PSK to random 
people. 

Josh Luthman 
Office: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[Gino A. Villarini]

Good, I got a couple or pet peeves, but all in all It was good

Gino A. Villarini
@gvillarini






Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]

On Dec 16, 2017, at 9:34 AM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 
mailto:jeffl...@att.net>> wrote:

I paid and I thought it was really good!  :-)

Jeff Broadwick
CTIconnect
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown 
mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com>> wrote:

It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave me free tickets.

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mark Radabaugh]

You mean like this: 
http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem


Mark


On 12/16/17 9:00 AM, Ron M. wrote:
What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP 
traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for 
carrying THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:


One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to
start charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just
like, dude, seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us
customers. He said, but now we can, so why wouldn't we? I said,
but did we before NN? And then I realized he was just trying to
annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!

On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will
charge for access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.
 Not. Going. To. Happen.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
To: "af" mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you
really wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do
something like that anyway, because there's no way that it would
be worth the customer backlash they'd have to deal with.

Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it...
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it.
Or else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that
they don't like and blame it on the lack of NN.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett
mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network
management".  They defined reasonable network management as
being driven by technical reasons rather than business
reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were
excluded from all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does
filtering for you.  They're a transit provider so they have
no NN rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories
about what would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the
sense to feel silly about pontificating on Facebook when
absolutely nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com " mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to
disclose it. JSo it really did’ent do anything.

*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer –
Consultant *

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
–
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net


Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com


Office: 314-735-0270 

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net


*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
*To:* af mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that
goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones
mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual
sites and will do so with impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think
understand how poorly granularity scales.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird
mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a
good idea to put out a statement..

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall
mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

Yep, that is concise and effective

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Ron M.]

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)

(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
wrote:

> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>
> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" 
> To: "af" 
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
> they'd have to deal with.
>
> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
> it on the lack of NN.
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
>
>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
>> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
>> clarifying.
>>
>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>> all the rules.
>> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
>> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>>
>> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
>> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
>> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Dennis Burgess" 
>> To: "af@afmug.com" 
>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
>> So it really did’ent do anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>>
>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
>>  –
>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>>
>>
>>
>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>>
>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>>
>> Office: 314-735-0270 <%28314%29%20735-0270>
>>
>> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
>> *To:* af 
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>>
>> Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
>> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutr
>> ality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so
>> with impunity.
>>
>>
>>
>> These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
>> granularity scales.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird  wrote:
>>
>> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
>> statement..
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall  wrote:
>>
>> Yep, that is concise and effective
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>>
>>
>>
>> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>>
>>
>>
>> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
>> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
>> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
>> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
>> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
>> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>
>> President
>>
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

[David Coudron]

We typically don’t do this unless specifically requested to do so by the 
customer.   We can set it up remotely since we provide Mikrotiks to all 
customers so we can always do it later without a site visit.   It seems like 
one more thing to educate the customer on unless they already know about it and 
request it.

David Coudron
david.coud...@advantenon.com  |  Mobile: 
612-991-7474



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Steve Jones
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:29 PM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Guest access/mode on customer routers

Cnmaestro doesnt do it the way i expected

On Dec 15, 2017 9:45 PM, "Josh Luthman" 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
Does anyone do this at all?  Wondering if it makes any sense.  I know I'd like 
it at my house with the r200 routers as I don't want to give up my PSK to 
random people.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne 
St
Suite 
1337
Troy, OH 
45373

Re: [AFMUG] OT Star Wars movie

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

I paid and I thought it was really good!  :-)

Jeff Broadwick
CTIconnect
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@cticonnect.com

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Chuck McCown  wrote:
> 
> It was pretty good.  Better because our Cisco sales folks gave me free 
> tickets.