Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying ESPN360 Dies an Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ... I don't think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you can do your own google search. I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple customers viewing the same stream. Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator community? Mr. Dale ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[NANOG] Purpose of Internap's PNET AS22212
Can anybody shed some light on Internap's PNET AS22212? Specifaly how it relates to their PNAP architecture? Is Internap now doing peering? I was under the impression that their entire business model was based around isolated PNAPs and being a backboneless provider. Attempts at getting an explanation from Internap have been fruitless. CT ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Dale Carstensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple customers viewing the same stream. Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator community? I'm not sure of the particulars, but Hulu (NBC/Universal and News Corp) and FanCast (Comcast) seem to have an interesting relationship. I would love to know more, but i detest reading financials. ;-) -Jim P. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ?
Dale: ESPN360 used to be something that internet subscribers paid for themselves, but now it's something that ISPs (most interesting to those who are also video providers) can offer. If you google around you can find a pretty good Wikipedia page on ESPN360. I looked into this for our operations because we do both (internet and video). The price was reasonable and you only pay on the number of internet subs that meet their minimum performance standards. Since 50% of our user base is at 128/128 kbps, that's a lot of subscribers we didn't need to pay for. In the end, I didn't get buy-in from the rest of the management team into adding this. I think they perceived (and probably correctly so) that too few of our users would actually *use* it. If I could get even 2% of our customer base seriously interested I think we would move on this. BTW, there's no multicast (at lease from Disney/ABC directly) involved. It's just another unicast video stream like YouTube. Frank -Original Message- From: Dale Carstensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 8:02 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: [NANOG] would ip6 help us safeing energy ? I became aware of something called espn360 last fall. I just did a google search so I could provide a URL, but one of the top search responses was a Aug 9, 2007 posting saying ESPN360 Dies an Unneccessary Death: A Lesson in Network Neutrality ... I don't think it's dead, though, and maybe if you don't know about it, you can do your own google search. I think Disney/ABC thinks they can get individual ISPs to pay them to carry sports audio/video streams. I suppose that would be yet another multicast stream method, assuming an ISP location had multiple customers viewing the same stream. Are other content providers trying to do something similar? How are operators dealing with this? What opinions are there in the operator community? Mr. Dale ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[NANOG] Level3 not honoring Broadwing contracts?
In 2006, I signed a 3 year contract with Broadwing for a 1 cabinet colocation with 6Mbs dedicated for under $1,000/mo. A few weeks ago, about halfway through this contract, I get a letter from Level 3's Director of Colocation that they are going to raise my price by several hundred dollars a month. I spoke with my new Level 3 rep, and he just notified me that their legal deparment confirms that all they have to do is give me 30 days notice to increase their price. This does not make sense to me. I am bound to a 3 year contract, where I have to pay them the rest of the term if I were to leave early, but they can jack up the price by 40-50% during that time, arbitrarily? I do not see that provision in my contract, and would rather avoid legal expenses if possible. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of thing from Level 3? TIA, James Smallacombe PlantageNet, Inc. CEO and Janitor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://3.am = ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
