Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. What happens if a 100Mbps port is $19.95/month with $1.95 per GB transferred up and down? Are P2P swarms as attractive?
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Of course, this below is for inter-domain. There is no shortage of multicast walled garden deployments. Regards Marshall On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Not to end users. I think multicast is used a fair amount for precaching; presumably that would increase in this scenario. Regards Marshall P.S. Of course, I do not agree we are moving to a pure VOD world. I agree with Michal Krsek in this regard. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. The North American market started with charging per GB transfered and went away from it because the drop in cost per Mbps for both circuits and transit made costs low enough so that providers could statistically multiplex their user base and offer unlimited service (unlimited for marketing departments is being able to offer something to 99 percent of your customer base, which explains all residential service clauses that state unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited). You can see this repeatedly for all sorts of products as costs have come down in the long view. For example, consumer Internet dialup, long distance calling plans, local phone service plans, some aspects of cell phone service, it might be happening with online storage right now (i.e. google gmail/gfs and the browser plugins that let you store files in your gmail account). What might or might not be trending is a digression, the unlimited service is a marketing condition that seems to occur when 99 percent of your customer base uses less than the cost equal to the benefit of offering unlimited service. Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. A lot of people won't abandon linear programming because it's easy to just watch whatever is on, but if you give them the possibility of watching VoD (DVD sales of TV series for instance) some will definately start doing both. Same thing with HDTV, until you show it to people they couldn't care less, but when you've shown them they do start to get interested. I have been trying to find out the advertising ARPU for the cable companies for a prime time TV show in the US, ie how much would I need to pay them to get the same content but without the advertising, and then add the cost of VoD delivery. This is purely theoretical, but it would give a rough indication on what a VoD distribution model might cost the end user if we were to add that distribution channel. Does anyone know any rough figures for advertising ARPU per hour on primetime? I'd love to hear it. Generally, in the US, the content is sent to the cable company with Ads already inserted, although they might get their own Ad slots. You would need to talk to the source, i.e., the network. Since you would be threatening the business model of their major customers, you would need patience and a lot of financial backing. For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Regards Marshall -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: What happens if a 100Mbps port is $19.95/month with $1.95 per GB transferred up and down? Are P2P swarms as attractive? $1.95 is outrageously expensive. Let's say we want to pass on our costs to the users with the highest usage: 1 megabit/s for a month is: 1/8*60*60*24*30=324000M=324 gigabytes Let's say this 1 megabit/s costs us $20 (which is fairly high in most markets), that means the price of a gigabyte transferred should be $0.06, let's say we increase that (because of peak usage, administrative costs etc) to $0.2. Now, let's include 35 gigs of traffic in each users alottment to get rid of usage based billing for most users (100 kilobit/s average usage) and add that to your above 100 meg port, and we end up with around $28, let's make that $29.95 a month including the 35 gigs. Hey, make it 50 gigs for good measure. Now, my guess is that 90% of the users will never use more than 50 gigs, and if they do, their increased usage will be quite marginal, but if someone actually uses 5 megabit/s on average (1.6terabytes per month (not unheard of) that person will have to fork out some money ($300 extra per month). Oh, this model would also require that you pay for bw you PRODUCE, not what you receive (since you cannot control that (DDoS, scanning etc)). So basically anyone sourcing material to the internet would have to pay in some way, the ones receiving wouldn't have to pay so much (only their monthly fee). The bad part is that this model would most likely hinder a lot of content-producers from actually publishing their content, but on the other hand it might be a better deal to distribute content more closer to the customers as carriers might be inclined to let you put servers in their network that only can send traffic to their network, not anybody else. It might also preclude a model where carriers charge each other on the amount of incoming traffic they see from peers. Personally, I don't think I want to see this but it does make sense in a economical/technical way, somewhat like road tolls. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html Couldn't read the PDFs so I'll just go from your below figures: shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Thanks for the figures. So basically if we can encode a 23 minute show (30 minutes minus ads) into a gig of traffic the network (precomputed HD 1080i with high VBR) cost would be around $0.2 (figure from my previous email, on margin) and pay $0.2 to the content owner, they would make the same amount of money as they do now? So basically the marginal cost of this service would be around $0.4-0.5 per show, and double that for a 45 minute episode (current 1 hour show format)? So question becomes whether people might be inclined to pay $1 to watch an adfree TV show? If they're paying $1.99 to iTunes for the actual download right now, they might be willing to pay $0.99 to watch it over VoD? As you said, of course this would take enormous amount of time and effort to convince the content owners of this model. Wonder if ISPs would be interested at these levels, that's also a good question. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. A lot of people won't abandon linear programming because it's easy to just watch whatever is on, but if you give them the possibility of watching VoD (DVD sales of TV series for instance) some will definately start doing both. Same thing with HDTV, until you show it to people they couldn't care less, but when you've shown them they do start to get interested. I have been trying to find out the advertising ARPU for the cable companies for a prime time TV show in the US, ie how much would I need to pay them to get the same content but without the advertising, and then add the cost of VoD delivery. This is purely theoretical, but it would give a rough indication on what a VoD distribution model might cost the end user if we were to add that distribution channel. Does anyone know any rough figures for advertising ARPU per hour on primetime? I'd love to hear it. Generally, in the US, the content is sent to the cable company with Ads already inserted, although they might get their own Ad slots. You would need to talk to the source, i.e., the network. Since you would be threatening the business model of their major customers, you would need patience and a lot of financial backing. For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This Sorry, that should be per half-hour (i.e., there are 10.3 half-minute ads per half-hour on average.) is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost So that should be $ 0.25 per half hour per person. I think that the advertising world needs a more metric system of measuring things and that I need some coffee. more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Regards Marshall Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Dear Mikael; On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html Couldn't read the PDFs so I'll just go from your below figures: shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Thanks for the figures. So basically if we can encode a 23 minute show (30 minutes minus ads) into a gig of traffic the network (precomputed HD 1080i with high VBR) cost would be around $0.2 (figure from my previous email, on margin) and pay $0.2 to the content owner, they would make the same amount of money as they do now? So basically the marginal cost of this service would be around $0.4-0.5 per show, and double that for a 45 minute episode (current 1 hour show format)? Yes - you saw I made a factor of two error in this (per hour vs per half hour), but, yes, that's the size you are talking about. A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. So question becomes whether people might be inclined to pay $1 to watch an adfree TV show? If they're paying $1.99 to iTunes for the actual download right now, they might be willing to pay $0.99 to watch it over VoD? As you said, of course this would take enormous amount of time and effort to convince the content owners of this model. Wonder if ISPs would be interested at these levels, that's also a good question. A business model I have wondered about is, take the network feed, pay the subscriber cost, and sell it over the Internet as an encrypted channel _with ads_. Would you be willing to pay $ 5 or even $ 10 per month to watch just one channel, as shown over the air ? I would, and here's why. In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. I do get it from the producer; that is what they produce. (And the video editor time referred to is people time, not machine time, which is trivial.) In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Yes, and that has the potential of immediately reducing their income by a factor of 2 or more. I suspect that they would compete at first by putting pressure on the channel aggregators not to sell to such businesses. (note : this is NOT a business I am pursuing at present.) What I do conclude from this is that the oncoming wave of IPTV and Internet Television is going to be very disruptive. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ISP Security BOF @NANOG 39
Folks, For some crazy reason I've agreed again to chair the ISP Security BOF at NANOG 39 in Toronto. If you've got items you'd like to discuss, like to see discussed, or would prefer not be presented, please let me know ASAP. The two agenda items for the moment are meant to be, in the very spirit of a BOF, loose panel discussions on the following topics: The root of a log: Extracting Intelligence from the Woods Botnet CC: Extirpate or Infiltrate? If you'd be interested in sharing your views, please let me know, although RSVP is not necessary. Slides are welcome but not required. Thanks in advance, see you in Toronto! -danny
Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
A friend of mine operates a blog at seeingtheforest.com, and he pays for traffic over a (fairly minimal) cap. He posted this comment recently: http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/01/eating_bandwidt.htm Eating Bandwidth Last month something ate up a tremendous amount of bandwidth at Seeing the Forest, costing me a lot of money. So now I regularly check bandwidth use. Why has 209.160.72.10, HopOne in DC, been eating a HUGE amount of bandwidth? Gigabytes! What are they doing? (I banned them.) Why has 220.226.63.254, an IP in India, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why has 62.194.1.235 AND 83.170.82.35 AND 89.136.115.220 AND 62.163.39.183 AND 212.241.204.145, all from the /same company/ in Amsterdam, been eating a TREMENDOUS amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why is 206.225.90.30 and 69.64.74.56 and Abacus America Inc.eating a TREMENDOUS amount of my bandwidth, *** One of the comments said: Yeah, I've seen a huge bump in my blog's traffic, I haven't figured out what they're doing, but it ate like 4Gb of bandwidth last month. Now that you mention it, I checked last month's stats and yep, there's 209.160.72.10 producing 62% of my blog traffic. I did a little checking around the web and they're an obvious spam host. Banned. *** They also chew up a lot of CPU (comment filter code). At few times, myself, I've had to simply take code offline that was getting hit too heavily... seems like the IPs (and their ilk) listed above are good prospects for a bad behavior blacklist, at a level below that of collaborative spam filter (which doesn't prevent traffic or CPU cycles from being consumed). Given the volume of traffic mentioned, this must be a real problem for some hosts and networks... although, on the other hand, if their marginal use rates are high enough, they might actually be making money off this. Regards, Thomas Leavitt -- Thomas Leavitt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
Re: ISP Security BOF @NANOG 39
i wanna hear/see Defending the NANOG net. i.e. how the local net is geared for security. i am especially interested as we will be needing to do a lot more for the AfNOG net this year, and could use the tech transfer. randy
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
Yes. Fistfulofeuros.net has seen dramatically higher levels of comments spam since last autumn. Not as much as below, but we were offline due to supposed overuse (I say supposed because our host claimed a script we don't have was responsible) over Christmas. On 1/13/07, Thomas Leavitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A friend of mine operates a blog at seeingtheforest.com, and he pays for traffic over a (fairly minimal) cap. He posted this comment recently: http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/01/eating_bandwidt.htm Eating Bandwidth Last month something ate up a tremendous amount of bandwidth at Seeing the Forest, costing me a lot of money. So now I regularly check bandwidth use. Why has 209.160.72.10, HopOne in DC, been eating a HUGE amount of bandwidth? Gigabytes! What are they doing? (I banned them.) Why has 220.226.63.254, an IP in India, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why has 62.194.1.235 AND 83.170.82.35 AND 89.136.115.220 AND 62.163.39.183 AND 212.241.204.145, all from the /same company/ in Amsterdam, been eating a TREMENDOUS amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? Why is 206.225.90.30 and 69.64.74.56 and Abacus America Inc.eating a TREMENDOUS amount of my bandwidth, *** One of the comments said: Yeah, I've seen a huge bump in my blog's traffic, I haven't figured out what they're doing, but it ate like 4Gb of bandwidth last month. Now that you mention it, I checked last month's stats and yep, there's 209.160.72.10 producing 62% of my blog traffic. I did a little checking around the web and they're an obvious spam host. Banned. *** They also chew up a lot of CPU (comment filter code). At few times, myself, I've had to simply take code offline that was getting hit too heavily... seems like the IPs (and their ilk) listed above are good prospects for a bad behavior blacklist, at a level below that of collaborative spam filter (which doesn't prevent traffic or CPU cycles from being consumed). Given the volume of traffic mentioned, this must be a real problem for some hosts and networks... although, on the other hand, if their marginal use rates are high enough, they might actually be making money off this. Regards, Thomas Leavitt -- Thomas Leavitt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Thomas Leavitt wrote: Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? this isn't in the ukraine, it's in NYC behind ISPrime. Phil is fairly hhelpful, you might ask them to 'figure out what the heck is going on' with that ip :) -Chris (unless the ukraine got a whole lot closer to IAD than I thought: 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=24.5 ms )
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:58:02 + (GMT) From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy To: Thomas Leavitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog nanog@merit.edu On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Thomas Leavitt wrote: Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? this isn't in the ukraine, it's in NYC behind ISPrime. Phil is fairly hhelpful, you might ask them to 'figure out what the heck is going on' with that ip :) -Chris (unless the ukraine got a whole lot closer to IAD than I thought: 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=24.5 ms Um-m-m-m... % Information related to '195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255' inetnum:195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255 netname:NETCATHOST descr: NetcatHosting country:UA admin-c:VS1142-RIPE tech-c: VS1142-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-by: NETCATHOST-MNT mnt-routes: NETCATHOST-MNT notify: [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040304 source: RIPE remarks:*** remarks:* Abuse contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * remarks:*** person: Vsevolod Stetsinsky address: 01110, Ukraine, Kiev, 20Á, Solomenskaya street. room 206. phone:+38 050 6226676 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nic-hdl: VS1142-RIPE changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040303 source: RIPE ) - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 9B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision. - Benjamin Franklin The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:14:23 + (GMT) From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Gregory Hicks wrote: [...] this isn't in the ukraine, it's in NYC behind ISPrime. Phil is fairly hhelpful, you might ask them to 'figure out what the heck is going on' with that ip :) -Chris (unless the ukraine got a whole lot closer to IAD than I thought: 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=24.5 ms [...] yes, but 'whois info' is not often 'correct' especially in this case, traceroute to it, unless ISPrime has some time-space vortex that ip (that one of the /22) is actually in NYC. speed-o-light don't often lie... Yup!. Should have looked further. Chris is right. (Learn from the master! - I *should* have known better...) Behind at least two levels of ISPrime... Thanks! - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 9B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision. - Benjamin Franklin The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
Surprise, a spammer is operating from IPs with fake registration data. I'm shocked... NOT! Owen On Jan 13, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Gregory Hicks wrote: Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:58:02 + (GMT) From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy To: Thomas Leavitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog nanog@merit.edu On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Thomas Leavitt wrote: Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? this isn't in the ukraine, it's in NYC behind ISPrime. Phil is fairly hhelpful, you might ask them to 'figure out what the heck is going on' with that ip :) -Chris (unless the ukraine got a whole lot closer to IAD than I thought: 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=24.5 ms Um-m-m-m... % Information related to '195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255' inetnum:195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255 netname:NETCATHOST descr: NetcatHosting country:UA admin-c:VS1142-RIPE tech-c: VS1142-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-by: NETCATHOST-MNT mnt-routes: NETCATHOST-MNT notify: [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040304 source: RIPE remarks:*** remarks:* Abuse contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * remarks:*** person: Vsevolod Stetsinsky address: 01110, Ukraine, Kiev, 20Á, Solomenskaya street. room 206. phone:+38 050 6226676 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nic-hdl: VS1142-RIPE changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040303 source: RIPE ) - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 9B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision. - Benjamin Franklin The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
I was asked to join late in 2005. On 1/13/07, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you operate fistfulofeuros? That's a good blog/community. I operate wampum and koufax, and draftgore2008, and we do see persistant commerical ad inserts, and the occasional event for which no commercial motive is self-evident. Eric
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the diversity of not-so-popular channels. Apparently, production costs are high all around (not surprising) and most channels do not support themselves entirely. The MSOs have had a la carte on their Santa wish list for years and the content providers do not believe in Santa Claus. :-) They believe in Benjamin Franklin...lots and lots of Benjamin Franklin. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Extensive evidence of the phenomenon Mike describes (inexpensive, frequently used things moving towards flat rate, expensive and rare ones towards sophisticated schemes a la Saturday night stop-over fares) is presented in my paper nternet pricing and the history of communications, Computer Networks 36 (2001), pp. 493-517, available at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf It also explains some of the mechanisms behind this tendency, drawn both from conventional economics (bundling, etc.) and behavioral economics (willingness to pay more for flat rates). This tendency can indeed reverse in cases of extreme asymmetry of usage. But one has to be careful there. Heavy users are often the most valuable. (In today's environment they are often the ones who provide the P2P material that attracts other uses to the network. And yes, there is a problem there, in that you don't need such heavy users to be on YOUR network for them to be an attraction in signing up new subscribers.) Andrew On Sat Jan 13, Mike Leber wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. The North American market started with charging per GB transfered and went away from it because the drop in cost per Mbps for both circuits and transit made costs low enough so that providers could statistically multiplex their user base and offer unlimited service (unlimited for marketing departments is being able to offer something to 99 percent of your customer base, which explains all residential service clauses that state unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited). You can see this repeatedly for all sorts of products as costs have come down in the long view. For example, consumer Internet dialup, long distance calling plans, local phone service plans, some aspects of cell phone service, it might be happening with online storage right now (i.e. google gmail/gfs and the browser plugins that let you store files in your gmail account). What might or might not be trending is a digression, the unlimited service is a marketing condition that seems to occur when 99 percent of your customer base uses less than the cost equal to the benefit of offering unlimited service. Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy
Hi Owen, What makes you think that the registration is fake? Just curious. :-) Pierre. On 1/13/07, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surprise, a spammer is operating from IPs with fake registration data. I'm shocked... NOT! Owen On Jan 13, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Gregory Hicks wrote: Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:58:02 + (GMT) From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Comment spammers chewing blogger bandwidth like crazy To: Thomas Leavitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog nanog@merit.edu On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Thomas Leavitt wrote: Why has 195.225.177.46, an IP in Ukraine, been eating a tremendous amount of bandwidth? What are they doing? this isn't in the ukraine, it's in NYC behind ISPrime. Phil is fairly hhelpful, you might ask them to 'figure out what the heck is going on' with that ip :) -Chris (unless the ukraine got a whole lot closer to IAD than I thought: 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=13.1 ms 64 bytes from 195.225.177.46: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=24.5 ms Um-m-m-m... % Information related to '195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255' inetnum:195.225.176.0 - 195.225.179.255 netname:NETCATHOST descr: NetcatHosting country:UA admin-c:VS1142-RIPE tech-c: VS1142-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PI mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-PI-MNT mnt-by: NETCATHOST-MNT mnt-routes: NETCATHOST-MNT notify: [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040304 source: RIPE remarks:*** remarks:* Abuse contacts: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * remarks:*** person: Vsevolod Stetsinsky address: 01110, Ukraine, Kiev, 20Á, Solomenskaya street. room 206. phone:+38 050 6226676 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] nic-hdl: VS1142-RIPE changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20040303 source: RIPE ) - Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 9B1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision. - Benjamin Franklin The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
This is the case of bundling, discussed in the paper I referenced in the previous message, http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf It is impossible, at least without detailed studies, to tell what the effect of selling individual channels would have. Bundling can have benefits for both consumers and producers (and that is what the cable industry in the US claims applies to their case, although all we can conclude for sure from their claims is that they believe it has benefits to them). Here is a simple example of bundling (something that has been known in standard economics literature for about 30 years, although in practice this has been done for thousands of years in various markets): From what Marshall wrote, it appears that the 2 channels that he and his family care about are worth at least $40 in total to him, and everything else is useless. Suppose (and this may or may not be true) he and his family value each of these channels, call them A and B, at $30/month and $20/month, respectively, so in principle the cable network could even raise their bundles' prices to a total of $50 without losing him as a subscriber. Now suppose that the universe of users consists just of Marshall and Mikael, except that Mikael and his family are interested in 3 channels, the two channels A and B that Marshall cares about, and channel C, and suppose the willingness to pay for them is $10, $5, and $25, respectively. If the cable company has to price the channels separately (and let's exclude the ability to price discriminate, namely charge different prices to Marshall and Mikael, something that is generally excluded by local franchise agreements), what will they do? They will surely ask for $30 for channel A, $20 for channel B, and $25 for channel C, and will get $50 from Marshall and $25 from Mikael, for a total of $75. On the other hand, if all they offer is a bundle of all 3 channels for $40/month, both Marshall and Mikael will pay $40 each for a total of $80/month. And note that both Marshall and Mikael will be getting the bundle for no more (less in Marshall's case) than their valuations of individual components. If $75/month is not enough to pay the content providers and maintain the network at a profit, the lack of bundling may even lead to death of the network. Andrew P.S. And don't forget that having channels is already a form of bundling, as are newspapers, ... On Sat Jan 13, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. I do get it from the producer; that is what they produce. (And the video editor time referred to is people time, not machine time, which is trivial.) In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Yes, and that has the potential of immediately reducing their income by a factor of 2 or more. I suspect that they would compete at first by putting pressure on the channel aggregators not to sell to such businesses. (note : this is NOT a business I am pursuing at present.) What I do conclude from this is that the oncoming wave of IPTV and Internet Television is going to be very disruptive. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
[ Note: Please don't send MIME/HTML messages to mailing lists ] Thus spake Gian Constantine: The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the diversity of not-so-popular channels. Apparently, production costs are high all around (not surprising) and most channels do not support themselves entirely. Regulators too. The city here tried forcing the MSOs to unbundle, and the result was that a single channel cost the same as the bundle it normally came in -- the content providers weren't willing to license them individually. The city gave in and dropped it. Just like the providers want to force people to pay for unpopular channels to subsidize the popular ones, they likewise want people to pay for unpopular programs to subsidize the popular ones. Consumers, OTOH, want to buy _programs_, not _channels_. Hollywood isn't dumb enough to fall for that, since they know 90% (okay, that's being conservative) of what they produce is crap and the only way to get people to pay for it is to jack up the price of the 10% that isn't crap and give the other 90% away. Of course, the logical solution is to quit producing crap so that such games aren't necessary, but since when has any MPAA or RIAA member decided to go that route? S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: ISP Security BOF @NANOG 39
If I could attend that BOF (I am in Brazil :-/)... Either way I'd like to suggest a subject:- Whois: Latest Developments At ICANN And How They Affect Incident Response Abraços, Marlon Borba, CISSP Técnico Judiciário - Segurança da Informação TRF 3ª Região (11) 3012-1683 -- Segurança é um processo, não um produto. -- Bruce Schneier -- Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/13/07 4:19 PM i wanna hear/see Defending the NANOG net. i.e. how the local net is geared for security. i am especially interested as we will be needing to do a lot more for the AfNOG net this year, and could use the tech transfer. randy
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Consumers, OTOH, want to buy _programs_, not _channels_. This is a very important point - perceived disintermediation, perceived unbundling, ad reduction/elimination, and timeshifting are the main reasons that DVRs are so popular (and now, placeshifting with things like Slingbox and Tivo2Go, though it's very early days in that regard). So, at least on the face of it, there appears to be a high degree of congruence between the things which make DVRs attractive and things which make P2P attractive. As to an earlier comment about video editing in order to remove ads, this is apparently the norm in the world of people who are heavy uploaders/crossloaders of video content via P2P systems. It seems there are different 'crews' who compete to produce a 'quality product' in terms of the quality of the encoding, compression, bundling/remixing, etc.; it's very reminiscent of the 'warez' scene in that regard. I believe that many of the people engaged in the above process do so because it's become a point of pride with them in the social circles they inhabit, again a la the warez community. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the energy and 'professional pride' of this group of people could somehow be harnessed in order to provide and distribute content legally (as almost all of what people really want seems to be infringing content under the current standard model), and monetized so that they receive compensation and essentially act as the packaging and distribution arm for content providers willing to try such a model. A related question is just how important the perceived social cachet of editing/rebundling/ redistributing -infringing- content is to them, and whether normalizing this behavior from a legal standpoint would increase or decrease the motivation of the 'crews' to continue providing these services in a legitimized commercial environment. As a side note, it seems there's a growing phenomenon of 'upload cheating' taking place in the BitTorrent space, with clients such as BitTyrant and BitThief becoming more and more popular while at the same time disrupting the distribution economies of P2P networks. This has caused a great deal of consternation in the infringing- oriented P2P community of interest, with the developers/operators of various BitTorrent-type systems such as BitComet working at developing methods of detecting and blocking downloading from users who 'cheat' in this fashion; it is instructive (and more than a little ironic) to watch as various elements within the infringing- oriented P2P community attempt to outwit and police one another's behavior, especially when compared/contrasted with the same classes of ongoing conflict between the infringing-oriented P2P community, content producers, and SPs. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
