date:20101220


On Dec 20, 2010, at 10:15 PM, Matthew Palmer wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:49:49PM +0200, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
>> I'm kinda fearing this in South Africa, as we have a few large  
>> incumbents who aren't really driving -NG versions of protocols.
>> 
>> They also have a "prove to us it's broken, and we may look at it in a  
>> few months' time"-attitude towards it. :O
> 
> That would be why 32-bit ASNs have been "requestable" for the last couple of
> years(?); you could have been prodding providers with "it doesn't work, fix
> it" for a while now.
> 
> - Matt
> 
> -- 
> "For once, Microsoft wasn't exaggerating when they named it the 'Jet Engine'
> -- your data's the seagull."
>   -- Chris Adams

I'll point out that there really isn't any alternative at this point. This 
approach
will issue 16-bit compatible ASNs as long as they last. Once they're gone,
it's not like there was some new 16-bit compatible alternative.

Owen

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Robert Bonomi

> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:28:06 -0800
> From: Leo Bicknell 
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd=
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > > When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over nig=
> ht from across the country while letting you track it's progress?
> >=20
> > Trouble is, now they can't. Why? Because they'd be threatening the jobs of
> > hard working Fedex/UPS/etc. employees.
>
> It's crazier than you think.
>
> http://www.usps.com/news/2001/press/pr01_015.htm
>
> Express, Priority, and First Class mail flies FedEx, and has since
> 2001.  I's part of a larger deal which is also why you now see a
> FedEx drop box at every post office.
>
> I guess it's coopertition.  I think I just made up a word. :)
>
> So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box,

Bzzt!  It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box.  It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_ as paying the FedEx
service/delivery fee.  This is true if it is just the letter you're sending,
or if it is a sealed letter -inside- a box/package being shipped..

Now _live_scorpions_, on the other hand, are someting that the USPS _will_
delive, but AFAIK no 'express' service will handle.  (One discovers some
of the strangest things when one actually sits down and *reads* the _complete_
rules/regulation on a subject.  In this case, it's the "Domestic Mail Manual".
Scorpions are 'addressed' in 601.9.3.10)

Re: AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool.

2010-12-20 Thread Matthew Palmer

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:49:49PM +0200, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
> I'm kinda fearing this in South Africa, as we have a few large  
> incumbents who aren't really driving -NG versions of protocols.
>
> They also have a "prove to us it's broken, and we may look at it in a  
> few months' time"-attitude towards it. :O

That would be why 32-bit ASNs have been "requestable" for the last couple of
years(?); you could have been prodding providers with "it doesn't work, fix
it" for a while now.

- Matt

-- 
"For once, Microsoft wasn't exaggerating when they named it the 'Jet Engine'
-- your data's the seagull."
-- Chris Adams

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Robert Bonomi

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org  Mon Dec 20 15:01:07 
> 2010
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:00:22 -0800
> From: Leo Bicknell 
> To: NANOG list 
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
>
> --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Joe Provo wr=
> ote:
> > An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
> > whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say "there
> > are no" are "this datum generalizes for all" in most all of this=20
> > and sister threads is a major error.  There is no national scope,=20
> > and the jury is still out if statewide scope [fpr video] is a good=20
> > or bad thing.=20
> >=20
> > Sorry to muddy with facts, please resume pontificating.
>
> Facts are good.  It appears there are more areas with two or more
> cable TV providers than I thought, and that knowledge is useful.
> I still maintain that the current set of regulation, laws, and
> economic realities have lead to insigifnicant compeition in that
> area, but that's purely an opinion.
>
> You are also correct that there is a lack of context in these
> threads.  There is a federal role (FCC, congressional), a state
> role (state PUC's), and a local role (county/city/town PUC's).
> Looking from the perspective of a town it's clear some have cable
> compeition, for example.  Look at it nationally, and it's a really
> small percentage (on the order of under 2%, best I can tell so far).
> One man's everyone is another's no one.
>
> I guess the question is, if these overbuilds work out so well in the
> cities where they do exist, why don't they exist more places?
>

As a character in a Robert Heinlein book says: "The answer to _any_
question that starts off 'why don't they..' is always 'money'."

For a cable built-out to be 'profitable', you have to get some particular
percentage of the 'covered' households to sign up for service.  To support
multiple providers the total 'penertration' in that area has to be at least:
#providers * break-even_subscriber_percentage

I have no idea what the current break-even percentage is, but (picking 
numbers out of thin air for the sake of argument) if it is, say 30% of
the households within the service area, then there are simply "not enough
customers to go around", even at complete market saturation (where 100% of 
the households have cable service) to support _four_ "profitable" cable 
providers.

"Overbuild" is practical *ONLY* where: (a) the population density is high,
lowering 'per customer' costs, and (b) service 'penetration' is high enough 
that the active subscriber base (as distinct from 'potential' subscribers) 
sufficient to support the 'overhead' of two complete, parallel, physical 
plants.  This tends to be 'self-limiting', to up-scale, high-density housing,
neighborhoods.   The 'raw economics' of the situation may well be distorted
by local government 'intrference' -- e.g., requiring a provider serve _all_
households within arbitrary boundaries, rather than just 'low hanging fruit'
areas.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd 
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over night 
> > from across the country while letting you track it's progress?
> 
> Trouble is, now they can't. Why? Because they'd be threatening the jobs of
> hard working Fedex/UPS/etc. employees.

It's crazier than you think.

http://www.usps.com/news/2001/press/pr01_015.htm

Express, Priority, and First Class mail flies FedEx, and has since
2001.  I's part of a larger deal which is also why you now see a
FedEx drop box at every post office.

I guess it's coopertition.  I think I just made up a word. :)

So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box,
what's the penalty for moving all the first class mail in a FedEx
airplane. :D

Oh yeah, FedEx can now deliver to APO and P.O. Boxes as well.

http://fedex.com/us/smartpost/

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

pgpnhDezkuhF4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Adrian Chadd

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:

> The private sector (FedEx/UPS, etc...) brought us overnight delivery
> where USPS couldn't...
> 
> ...and next-day air
> ...and freight delivery
> ...and package tracking that reports more than just "We don't know where it 
> is/It's at the post office"
> 
> When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over night 
> from across the country while letting you track it's progress?

Trouble is, now they can't. Why? Because they'd be threatening the jobs of
hard working Fedex/UPS/etc. employees.

:-)



Adrian
(only half tongue in cheek here.)

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Aaron C. de Bruyn

On 2010-12-19 at 20:44:21 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
> et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.

Like JC said, the Private Express statutes prevent you from being a
common mail carrier.

The government created USPS and brought us slow bureaucratic mail
delivery.

The private sector (FedEx/UPS, etc...) brought us overnight delivery
where USPS couldn't...

...and next-day air
...and freight delivery
...and package tracking that reports more than just "We don't know where it 
is/It's at the post office"

When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over night from 
across the country while letting you track it's progress?

-A

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Steven Bellovin


On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:

> On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> There is no monopoly.  They've already experimented with that and 
>> (apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
>> 
>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.html
>>  
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Tuesday, June 17, 2008
> 
> 
> Do you have any cites saying that this was actually rolled out?  Or did the 
> project get cut during the financial crisis, and never actually rolled out?
> 
> The issue I have with all these "cites" is that none of them are for services 
> that are up and running.  They are all press releases about something that 
> will supposedly get built, maybe.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever
> 
Maybe I've lost the thread context, but if you're talking about FIOS it most 
certainly is running, in many places 
(http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/aboutFiOS/Overview.htm?CMP=DMC-CVS_ZZ_ZZ_E_TV_N_X001).
  My town has it; Comcast's responsiveness improved dramatically after FIOS was 
rolled out  Speeds are good, prices less so, and if memory serves they 
charge something like $40/mo extra for static IP addresses.


--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


 On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:



There is no monopoly.  They've already experimented with that and 
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.html 



*


 Tuesday, June 17, 2008


Do you have any cites saying that this was actually rolled out?  Or did 
the project get cut during the financial crisis, and never actually 
rolled out?


The issue I have with all these "cites" is that none of them are for 
services that are up and running.  They are all press releases about 
something that will supposedly get built, maybe.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever

jc
*

Re: Help with GC/Level3 route issue

2010-12-20 Thread Carlos G Mendioroz


Sure, I just was unsure that the post was ok in this forum.

We are advertising 168.83.20.0/23, 168.83.60.0/22, 168.83.68.0/22,
168.83.72.0/21 & 168.83.80.0/20.
(Now we are injecting /24 as a quick hack to patch the situation).

GC is advertising various 168.83.0.0/16 subnets too, which is ok,
but e.g. the 168.83.20.0/23 is there w/o reason.

-Carlos

Randy Epstein wrote:

Carlos,


Hi,
I'm facing a problem that is becoming a nightmare.
Some of our prefixes (ASN 10277) are being redistributed by Level 3 as
being learned from/originated by Global Crossing.


Care to provide some of the prefixes?




--
Carlos G Mendioroz

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:

> On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
>> are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.
> 
>> This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.
> 
> FWIW, I'm at 14-15 kilofeet from the CO, and am getting a solid 7Mb/s down 
> and 512kb/s up.  The ISP has three tiers of DSL, and I'm at the lowest (which 
> is probably the one that will work at my distance).  They also provide a 9M 
> down / 768k up, and a 11M down / 1M up for slightly higher rates.  I'm told 
> that the 11 down/1 up will work up to 12 kilofeet by their engineering. 
> 
Those are all still sub-T1 on the uplink and well below normal CMTS service
speeds. Low-end CMTS is around 15Mbps/7Mbps.

> I'm running a secondary administrative DSL at my employer's location at the 
> full 7/.5 rate at a distance of nearly 18 kilofeet, the last 2 kilofeet being 
> our inside plant of CAT3 CALPETH.  That is on a Cisco ADSL WIC in a 2651; 
> show dsl interface atm0/0 shows a downstream rate of 6.8Mb/s and an upstream 
> of 640kb/s.  Not bad for the distance.  Margins are good on both directions, 
> being 12dB upstream and 8.5dB downstream.
> 
I'm happy for you. The AT&T cable plant in my neighborhood is unable to
sustain any better than 1.5mbps/384k on ADSL.

> My experience is that the downstream is mildy oversubscribed, and the 
> upstream less so.
> 
> Their copper in my area is nearly new, they have spent the last five years or 
> so refreshing and updating their copper outside plant.  

That helps a lot. It still doesn't compete with CMTS which was my point.

Owen

RE: Help with GC/Level3 route issue

2010-12-20 Thread Randy Epstein

Carlos,

>Hi,
>I'm facing a problem that is becoming a nightmare.
>Some of our prefixes (ASN 10277) are being redistributed by Level 3 as
>being learned from/originated by Global Crossing.

Care to provide some of the prefixes?

Help with GC/Level3 route issue

2010-12-20 Thread Carlos G Mendioroz


Hi,
I'm facing a problem that is becoming a nightmare.
Some of our prefixes (ASN 10277) are being redistributed by Level 3 as
being learned from/originated by Global Crossing.

Thing is, we have no contact with GC nor Level3. I'd appreciate any kind
advice as to who to contact regarding this. Sorry if this is not the
right channel too.

--
Carlos G Mendioroz

Re: TCP congestion control and large router buffers

2010-12-20 Thread Jim Gettys

On 12/19/2010 02:16 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

On 12/9/10 7:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010, Vasil Kolev wrote:

I wonder why this hasn't made the rounds here. From what I see, a
change in this part (e.g. lower buffers in customer routers, or a
change (yet another) to the congestion control algorithms) would do
miracles for end-user perceived performance and should help in some
way with the net neutrality dispute.

It's really hard to replace all the home user's hardware. Trying to
"fix" the problem by fixing all of that is much more painful (and
expensive) than fixing the network to not have the buffers.

I'd say this is common knowledge and has been for a long time.

Common knowledge among whom? I'm hardly a naive Internet user.

And the statement is wrong: the large router buffers have effectively
destroyed TCP's congestion avoidance altogether.

In the world of CPEs, lowest price and simplicity is what counts, so
nobody cares about buffer depth and AQM, that's why you get ADSL CPEs
with 200+ ms of upstream FIFO buffer (no AQM) in most devices.

200ms is good; but it is often up to multiple *seconds*. Resulting
latencies on broadband gears are often horrific: see the netalyzr plots
that I posted in my blog. See:

http://gettys.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/whose-house-is-of-glasse-must-not-throw-stones-at-another/

Dave Clark first discovered bufferbloat on his DSLAM: he used the 6
second latency he saw to DDOS his son's excessive WOW playing.

All broadband technologies are affected, as are, it turns out, all
operating systems and likely all home routers as well (see other posts
I've made recently). DSL, cable and FIOS all have problems.

How many of retail ISP's service calls have been due to this terrible
performance?

I know I was harassing Comcast with multiple service calls over a year
ago over what I now think was bufferbloat. And periodically for a
number of years before that (roughly since DOCSIS 2 deployed, I would
guess).

"The Internet is slow today, Daddy" was usually Daddy saturating the
home link, and bufferbloat the cause. Every time they would complain,
I'd stop what I was doing, and the problem would vanish. A really nice
willow the wisp...

you're going to see more of it, at a minimum cpe are going to have to be
able to drain a gig-e into a port that may be only 100Mb/s. The QOS
options available in a ~$100 cpe router are adequate for the basic purpose.

But the port may only be 1 Mb/second; 802.11g is 20Mbps tops; but drops
to 1Mbps in extremis.

So the real dynamic range is at least a factor of 1000 to 1.

d-link dir-825 or 665 are examples of such devices

Yes, and E3000's and others. Some are half measures, and have a single
knob for both shaping uplinks and downlink bandwidth.

The QOS features in home routers can help, but does not solve all
problems.

In part, because as broadband bandwidth increases, the bottleneck link
may shift/often shifts to the home router to edge device links, and
there are similar (or even worse) bufferbloat problems in both the home
routers and operating systems.

Personally I have MQC configured on my interface which has assured bw
for small packets and ssh packets, and I also run fair-queue to make tcp
sessions get a fair share. I don't know any non-cisco devices that does
this.

the consumer cpe that care seem to be mostly oriented along keeping
gaming and voip from being interfereed with by p2p and file transfers.

An unappreciated issue is that these buffers have destroyed TCP (and all
other congestion avoiding protocols) congestion avoidance.

Secondly, any modern operating system (anything other than Windows XP),
implements window scaling, and will, within about 10 seconds, *fill* the
buffers with a single TCP connection, and they stay full until traffic
drops enough to allow them to empty (which may take seconds). Since
congestion avoidance has been defeated, you get nasty behaviour out of TCP.

Congestion avoidance depends on *timely* notification to the end points
of congestion: these buffers have destroyed the *timely* requirement of
a fundamental presumption of internet protocol design.

If you think that simultaneously:
1) destroying congestion avoidance
2) destroying slow-start, as many major web sites are
by increasing their initial window
3) browsers are now using many TCP connections simultaneously
4) while the TCP traffic shifts to window scaling, enabling
even a single TCP connection to fill these buffers.
5) increasing numbers of large uploads/downloads (not just
bittorrent, HD movie delivery to disk, backup, crash dump
uploads, etc)
is a good idea, you aren't old enough to have experienced the NSFnet
collapse during the 1980's (as I did). I have post-traumatic stress
disorder from that experience; I'm worried about the confluence of these
changes, folks.

And t

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Dorn Hetzel

Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadband at all.

Satellite, Cellular, and T-1, those are my options.

A mile away, there are choices, but not here.  I am sure we aren't the only
neighborhood in this situation, even today.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:

>
> >
> > And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> > operators.
>
> We have 2 separate cable providers in our town. One of them is a division
> of the local telephone company, but it is still CATV plant. The telco also
> operates a FTTH service with IPTV video as well.
>
> The result is that the big national CATV provider had incredibly good rates
> for a long time, and even after they were more than doubled, are still
> really good.
>
> -Randy
>
>

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Randy Carpenter


> 
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.

We have 2 separate cable providers in our town. One of them is a division of 
the local telephone company, but it is still CATV plant. The telco also 
operates a FTTH service with IPTV video as well.

The result is that the big national CATV provider had incredibly good rates for 
a long time, and even after they were more than doubled, are still really good.

-Randy

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Jack Bates




On 12/20/2010 3:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:

Their copper in my area is nearly new, they have spent the last five
years or so refreshing and updating their copper outside plant.


This makes a huge difference. At a little over 18,000 feet, I had to 
drop to 3m down .5 up to stabilize my DSL connection long term; 
especially during storms. It could push up to 6 down, .75 up but 
wouldn't hold stable when I needed it to.


Of course, since then, we dropped a system roughly 200 feet from my 
house and 100 symmetric is possible.



Jack

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread David Sparro

On 12/20/2010 12:05 AM, JC Dill wrote:

On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

The laws of diminishing returns have already set the bar for the point
at which it's not profitable for a new company to enter the market and
try to compete. Right now the number is roughly 2, cable and dsl, give
or take a few outliers. I do believe the point would be to encourage a
little more competition than that. :)

In other words; it's an economic problem. Not Technical or regulation.

This is true but ONLY in the current climate where the incumbents have a
monopoly on the ability to put in cabling for the last mile to homes.

I live in an area where there are 2 ILECs (AT&T, Verizon) in nearby
proximity. Both are putting in fiber to some homes in their respective
areas. Imagine what would happen if they could both put in fiber in the
other areas. Then they would be *competitors* for those customers. Right
now, they don't compete - they each have a territory and in their
territory they are the predominant telco player (competing with the
cable incumbent - usually Comcast).

There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.html

My theory is that everybody is just waiting around for things like
'network neutrality', 'broadband stimulus', and 'USF reform' to finally
get decided before the Big Guys start to spend any money on upgrades.

--
Dave

Re: SDSL circuits in UK?

2010-12-20 Thread Paul Cupis


On 20/12/10 21:29, Jim Mercer wrote:

now, can anyone suggest a source for SDSL links, for private networks in the
UK?


There are a number of network operators capable of supplying SDSL (Annex 
B) in the UK depending on the location.


There are a chose of operators with their own DSLANs at the telephone 
exchanges (COs) as well as a number of wholesalers and retailers who can 
offer layer 2 or layer 3 access.


I'm sure there are a number of UK operators on the list (who may also 
contact you off-list) - can you be any more specific with your requirements?


Regards,

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Lamar Owen

On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
> The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
> are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.

> This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.

FWIW, I'm at 14-15 kilofeet from the CO, and am getting a solid 7Mb/s down and 
512kb/s up.  The ISP has three tiers of DSL, and I'm at the lowest (which is 
probably the one that will work at my distance).  They also provide a 9M down / 
768k up, and a 11M down / 1M up for slightly higher rates.  I'm told that the 
11 down/1 up will work up to 12 kilofeet by their engineering. 

I'm running a secondary administrative DSL at my employer's location at the 
full 7/.5 rate at a distance of nearly 18 kilofeet, the last 2 kilofeet being 
our inside plant of CAT3 CALPETH.  That is on a Cisco ADSL WIC in a 2651; show 
dsl interface atm0/0 shows a downstream rate of 6.8Mb/s and an upstream of 
640kb/s.  Not bad for the distance.  Margins are good on both directions, being 
12dB upstream and 8.5dB downstream.

My experience is that the downstream is mildy oversubscribed, and the upstream 
less so.

Their copper in my area is nearly new, they have spent the last five years or 
so refreshing and updating their copper outside plant.

Re: SDSL circuits in UK?

2010-12-20 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:29:34 EST, Jim Mercer said:
> 
> in the spirit of globalization, i've now added the UK to north america.

Don't DSL links drop in maximum throughput based on cable-feet
from the CO?  At 21,495,394 cable feet, your up/down speeds are
probably going to be somewhere south of 4bits/sec.  :)


pgpQuynhNKiky.pgp
Description: PGP signature

SDSL circuits in UK?

2010-12-20 Thread Jim Mercer


in the spirit of globalization, i've now added the UK to north america.

8^)

now, can anyone suggest a source for SDSL links, for private networks in the
UK?

-- 
Jim Mercerj...@reptiles.org+1 416 410-5633
You are more likely to be arrested as a terrorist than you are to be
blown up by one. -- Dianora

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:

> So, we seem to circle the same points:
> 
> 1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth 
> requirements?
> 
>Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since they 
> are collecting fees for the service and they are not, but still have to pay 
> for the bandwidth (maintenance and upgrades).
> 
What do you mean they are not? I'm paying Comcast $100/month to 
deliver the internet content I want to my home. They damn well are getting paid 
to do so.

>The customer is being billed twice: First to get access to the 
> Internet to reach services, and then for the service offered by the content 
> provider. The concern is that all customers, regardless of the services they 
> select, will end up paying for the upgrades if the ISP has to/does raise 
> rates. This makes the customer using the bandwidth-intensive application 
> happy, and the other customers not using it unhappy.
> 
I don't use particularly bandwidth-intensive applications. 
However, I do think that access networks should cover the costs of delivering 
the content I request from the fees I pay.
All that happens if you let them bill the content provider and double-dip is 
that the content provider has to pass those fees on to the service I'm using 
(at a markup, of course) who then
passes the cost on to me (again at a markup). I'd much rather pay the cost 
directly to my access provider without the double (or more) markups, thank you.

>The content provider pays for Internet access, and in some cases puts 
> in proxies to cache closer to the source. They do not pay the end customer 
> ISP for service (assuming different providers in play). The content provider 
> receives revenue for its services.
> 
IMHO, this is as it should be.

> The problem is still that someone has to support and build infrastructure. 
> Some believe that Internet streaming video is the direction we are headed in, 
> and that does appear to be true. But there are still a lot of customers that 
> are not using this service, effectively subsidizing the customers using this 
> service. This can be irksome, because most customers are unwilling to go back 
> to a "pay for what you use plan" after having unlimited access. I think that 
> would really put the pressure on both customers and content providers alike 
> to be more efficient.
> 
If you don't need broadband, subscribe to narrow-band services. 
They are still available in most areas for less than broadband.

> I understand that the goal is for the customer to get what they want on 
> demand, but that will never be a reality, for anyone, anywhere. I'd love to 
> see content providers continue the push towards more efficient technologies 
> and architecture, but there is no impetus for them to do so unless they have 
> a financial reason. The same is true for the ISP and the customer.
> 
There are already good incentives for the content provider. 
It's called "user experience". If the content is close, i get a good user 
experience. If it is far away, I get a poor
user experience and I move on to a different content provider. If there were 
meaningful competition in the access market, I could do the same thing. 
Unfortunately, there is not
where I live and not in most locations.

> Bottom line:
> 
> Customers need to think about the purchase of content (considering each one 
> as a transaction that has value) more. Not as a worrisome, "bill will be 
> enormous" way, but assigning value to it nonetheless.
> 
I think I do this already.

> Content Providers need to continue upgrading methodologies, compression, and 
> technologies in order to make their service a smooth, efficient "essential 
> object." This will help keep any one service from overwhelming the rest, 
> which is the bane of every service provider/transit provider.
> 
I think that is already happening and will continue to happen.

> Service/Transit Providers need to re-evaluate their bandwidth offerings to 
> customers, their relationships with content providers, and with each other. 
> The model is very inefficient and political. The only way to be competitive 
> seems to be, as someone said, to provide a solid Layer 1-3 platform that will 
> drive innovation at layers 4-7.
> 
I think you need to separate Transit Providers from Access Providers here. The 
reality is that there are four classes of players present without clear 
delineation:

Content Providers (including Content Provider Hosting Networks)
Content Delivery Networks
Transit Networks
Access Networks

If there are any pure players in any one space above left, I would be 
surprised, but, each of these four
spaces comes with a different set of tradeoffs and desires. Traditionally, 
Level3 has been a Transit
Network with some Access and some Content Provider aspects. Now they are

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 12/20/2010 12:46, JC Dill wrote:
> 
> Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
> discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations.  What I want are
> the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
> overbuilds are currently in place and serving customers.
> 

Or conversely, they tried and failed.

I found Astound Broadband through the lmgtfy link (yes, I did look and
read, thanks) and they appear to be alive. But I don't live in
California to verify that personally.

~Seth

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Joe Provo

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:46:39PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
[snip]
> Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about 
> discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations.  What I want are 
> the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such 
> overbuilds are currently in place and serving customers.

original question "was" and I know at least rcn. astound bought 
out their SF operation when I was leaving but a trivial search
show they still service where we did and have added.  

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
> whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say "there
> are no" are "this datum generalizes for all" in most all of this 
> and sister threads is a major error.  There is no national scope, 
> and the jury is still out if statewide scope [fpr video] is a good 
> or bad thing. 
> 
> Sorry to muddy with facts, please resume pontificating.

Facts are good.  It appears there are more areas with two or more
cable TV providers than I thought, and that knowledge is useful.
I still maintain that the current set of regulation, laws, and
economic realities have lead to insigifnicant compeition in that
area, but that's purely an opinion.

You are also correct that there is a lack of context in these
threads.  There is a federal role (FCC, congressional), a state
role (state PUC's), and a local role (county/city/town PUC's).
Looking from the perspective of a town it's clear some have cable
compeition, for example.  Look at it nationally, and it's a really
small percentage (on the order of under 2%, best I can tell so far).
One man's everyone is another's no one.

I guess the question is, if these overbuilds work out so well in the
cities where they do exist, why don't they exist more places?

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

pgpbUNjA0n7hq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:37 AM, George Bonser wrote:

> 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>> 
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen > gerbil.net> wrote:
>>> Running a wire to everyone's house is a natural monopoly. It just
>>> doesn't make sense, financially or technically, to try and manage 50
>>> different companies all trying to install 50 different wires into
>> every
>>> house just to have competition at the IP layer. It also wouldn't
> make
>> 
>> What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
>> install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
>> that is a good way to invest their finite resources.  This is why we
>> see several options for local loops in the "business district" of
>> every sizable city, as well as in many newly-developed areas such as
>> industrial parks.  These infrastructure builds are expensive, the
>> CLECs had limited logistical capabilities and could only manage so
>> many projects at once, and obviously, they focused their efforts on
>> the parts of town where return-on-investment was likely to be highest.
>> Businesses often do have several good choices for voice, data,
>> Internet, and so on.  Cogent is an example of an essentially
>> Internet-only service having some degree of success at this without
>> even offering voice, or initially even transport, products.
> 
> Also, there are two ways in to most urban and suburban home.  There is
> the telco and there is the "cable" company.  There is no reason those
> two paths should not compete for the same services, and they do across
> an increasing area of the US.  The rural areas, though, are a completely
> different story.
> 
> 
In the vast majority of cases, these are not equal competitors.

The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.

This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.

Most cable systems can deliver at least 10mbps/3mbps.

That's not competition unless your internet needs are extremely
modest and you are willing to accept some rather severe limitations.

I remember when I was on top of the world because I had T1 service
to my home and I used an average of 200kbps. Those days are long
gone. Today I get more than 200kbps in SPAM traffic.

Owen

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


 On 20/12/10 12:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

Amazing how that worked,


or didn't


  even spelling "fransisco" (sic) wrong.


One letter off:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco


Did either of you actually *look* at the search results?

Lets take a quote from the first result:

www.broadbandmarkets.com/articles/fiberDeep2.htm

With franchises in two communities and others pending, it has begun 
building an HFC network that will eventually deliver bundled services 
to roughly 280,000 residents and businesses in Contra Costa County in 
the East Bay area of San Francisco.



OK, let's google for THAT.

http://www.google.com/search?q=overbuild+network+contra+costa+county

No data, just references back to the initial press releases.  I can't 
find any data that the overbuild *actually took place*.



Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about 
discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations.  What I want are 
the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such 
overbuilds are currently in place and serving customers.


jc

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


 On 20/12/10 12:00 PM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:


the point of the bubble analogy had more to do with poor speculation driving 
poor investments than it had to do with the nature of the build outs.  I don't 
really think it would be far-fetched to see it happen again in broadband 
(perhaps in a better economy),


A "bad economy" is the RIGHT time to build out.  Labor is much cheaper 
and more readily found, and money is harder to come by which means your 
business plan gets more thorough review before you get funding.  The 
booming economy is when money is spent unwisely and labor costs skyrocket.


jc

RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread George Bonser

> The result is not competition, but a government sponsored duopoliy.
> This didn't bring more players to the table, it just let those already
> at the table offer a full set of overlapping services.  Likely a good
> step, but not the same as getting new entrants into the market.
> 
> --
>Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

"Back in the day" people used to get their email, usenet, maybe even
hosting their web page, from their ISP.  When DSL came about, many of
these services migrated to the portals and the ISP became less of a
"services provider" and more of a "transport provider".  The "problem"
with operations like the cable providers is that they seem to want to
fight tooth and nail not to allow the video services a person consumes
becoming an a la carte service where the end user picks and chooses from
what amounts to "video portal" sites. 

An analogy from the old days might be an ISP trying very hard to prevent
users from getting Yahoo! or Google mail or outside web hosting.  The
cable providers apparently aren't keen on simply being an ISP and
allowing end users to get their video content from wherever they choose.
In other words, they see themselves as a video content provider that
also provides internet service while the market is trying to move them
to an internet provider that also offers video content.  This is made
worse when the content distributor is also the content producer. The
migration toward the "siloing" of entertainment content means this
problem will just get worse. 

What's next?  AT&T buying Disney and Verizon buying National Amusements?
So now you have the company that produces the product also owns the
railroad that delivers the product and charges fees for competitors
shipping their goods on that railroad that makes the others less
competitive.  So the competing railroads simply buy up their own freight
producers and do the same thing.

Or do we create a "highway" that allows any number of freight shippers
to operate to ship goods from any number of buyers to any number of
sellers.  I suppose what it boils down to is making the companies decide
what they are.  Are they an "internet service provider" or are they an
"entertainment content provider" because being both at the same time
seems to be a built-in conflict of interest from the consumer's point of
view.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> Amazing how that worked, even spelling "fransisco" (sic) wrong.
> 

One letter off:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell  said:
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.

Huntsville, AL has Comcast and Knology (originally CableAlabama) cable
available at virtually every address (except for some apartment
complexes, which tend to only be wired for one cable plant and negotiate
a deal with one company or the other).  I believe some of the
surrounding areas have overlap between Knology and Mediacom.

A number of years ago (15 or so?), CableAlabama wanted to sell out to
Comcast, and the city refused to allow it under the franchise agreement.
CA sued and eventually won a settlement, but didn't end up merging (and
became or was bought out by Knology).  IIRC the settlement was 50% off
of the franchise fee for 20 years or so.

For a long time, we had the lowest cable prices in the country because
of the competition, but I don't think that's the case anymore (Comcast,
being the big corporate entity, doesn't care about competition with
Knology, and Knology just raises their prices to keep up).

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Rettke, Brian

So, we seem to circle the same points:

1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth 
requirements?

Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since they 
are collecting fees for the service and they are not, but still have to pay for 
the bandwidth (maintenance and upgrades).

The customer is being billed twice: First to get access to the Internet 
to reach services, and then for the service offered by the content provider. 
The concern is that all customers, regardless of the services they select, will 
end up paying for the upgrades if the ISP has to/does raise rates. This makes 
the customer using the bandwidth-intensive application happy, and the other 
customers not using it unhappy.

The content provider pays for Internet access, and in some cases puts 
in proxies to cache closer to the source. They do not pay the end customer ISP 
for service (assuming different providers in play). The content provider 
receives revenue for its services.

The problem is still that someone has to support and build infrastructure. Some 
believe that Internet streaming video is the direction we are headed in, and 
that does appear to be true. But there are still a lot of customers that are 
not using this service, effectively subsidizing the customers using this 
service. This can be irksome, because most customers are unwilling to go back 
to a "pay for what you use plan" after having unlimited access. I think that 
would really put the pressure on both customers and content providers alike to 
be more efficient.

I understand that the goal is for the customer to get what they want on demand, 
but that will never be a reality, for anyone, anywhere. I'd love to see content 
providers continue the push towards more efficient technologies and 
architecture, but there is no impetus for them to do so unless they have a 
financial reason. The same is true for the ISP and the customer.

Bottom line:

Customers need to think about the purchase of content (considering each one as 
a transaction that has value) more. Not as a worrisome, "bill will be enormous" 
way, but assigning value to it nonetheless.

Content Providers need to continue upgrading methodologies, compression, and 
technologies in order to make their service a smooth, efficient "essential 
object." This will help keep any one service from overwhelming the rest, which 
is the bane of every service provider/transit provider.

Service/Transit Providers need to re-evaluate their bandwidth offerings to 
customers, their relationships with content providers, and with each other. The 
model is very inefficient and political. The only way to be competitive seems 
to be, as someone said, to provide a solid Layer 1-3 platform that will drive 
innovation at layers 4-7.

At least, that's my perspective on it.

Sincerely,

Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services

-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Bresley [mailto:b...@brezworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
>> operators.  You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
>> second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
>> that cost too much.  Rather, if  you read carefully the problem was
>> that Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South (all mentioned by name in the
>> article) wanted to deliver video over FIOS/DSL.  Most areas had
>> coverage rules, to be a cable provider you had to pass 95%+ of the
>> houses or such, and these folks didn't meet many of the local rules
>> and went to the government for help.
>>
> I think that I recall encountering one or two such places in the past,
> but, I cannot recall them to make a specific citation. Certainly it is the
> exception and not the rule.
>
> Owen
>

Cedar Rapids, IA is served by both Mediacom (incumbent/original cable
company) and Imon (spinoff from McLeodUSA where they used to be called
McLeodUSA ATS).  As well as having Qwest for telco service.

ATS started as an overbuild to compete at the local level in MCLD's
hometown.  They were started circa 1997, and are still in business
today, so they survived the last 2 bubbles.  And they caused Mediacom to
keep prices down, and compete to offer additional services in Cedar
Rapids long before they were available in other cities in their footprint.

So examples of competitive overbuilds being successful do exist.  Maybe
Google's fiber build will inspire some other companies to try to compete
in this fashion.

Full disclosure: I worked for MCLD from 98-05, and in the ATS division
from 00-05.

Jeremy

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Joe Provo

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:46:10AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo 
> wrote:
> > Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
> > the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston).  Parts of the
> > SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
> > (RCN, WOW and several others).  Nontrivial capital is required for the 
> > build-and-maintain of physical plant, so most all have shrunk since the 
> > bubble popping.
> 
> Interesting, I figured a few major cities would have a second
> provider, being able to high a large high rise or apartment complex
> might make the economics make sense.

Different problems; the property management adds another administrative
layer to the sequence (locality/district/ward; city/town; state; federal)
which has varying powers for exclusivity.  Which of course vary by 
(locality/etc; city; state).

[snip]
> Which brings us back to the argument at hand, the problem is a
> combination of factors, regulatority (franchise issues), physical
[snip]

An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say "there
are no" are "this datum generalizes for all" in most all of this 
and sister threads is a major error.  There is no national scope, 
and the jury is still out if statewide scope [fpr video] is a good 
or bad thing. 

Sorry to muddy with facts, please resume pontificating.

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Jeffrey S. Young


On 20/12/2010, at 1:22 PM, JC Dill  wrote:

> On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>> 
>> Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you 
>> believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of 
>> players 1-5?  What if player two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on 
>> a speaking circuit, starts telling the market that his bandwidth demands are 
>> growing at the rate of 300% per year and players 6-10 jump into the market 
>> with strong financial backing?  While I believe in free-market economics and 
>> I will agree with you that the situation will eventually sort itself out; 
>> thousands of ditch-diggers and poll-climbers will lose their jobs, but this 
>> is "the way of things."
> 
> Apples and oranges.  The telcom bubble didn't involve building out *to the 
> home*.  The cost to build a data center and put in modems or lease dry copper 
> for DSL is dramatically lower than the cost to build out to the home.  It was 
> financially feasible (even if not the best decision, especially if you based 
> the decision on a provably false assumption on market growth) to be player 6 
> in the early days of the Internet, it's not financially feasible to be player 
> 6 to build out fiber to the home.
>> I do  not agree that the end-consumer should be put through this fiasco and 
>> I am confident that the money spent digging more ditches and stringing more 
>> ugly overhead cables would be better spent on layers 3 and more importantly 
>> on services at layers 4-7.
> 
> The problem is getting fair access to layer 1 for all players.  If it takes 
> breaking the monopoly rules for putting in layer 1 facilities to get past 
> this log jam, then that may be the solution.
> 
>>  The utopian solution (pun intended) would be to develop a local, state, 
>> federal system of broadband similar to the highway system of roads.  Let 
>> those broadband providers who can compete by creating layer 3 backbones and 
>> services at layers 4-7 (and layer 1-2 with wireless) survive. Let the 
>> innovation continue at layers 4-7 without constant saber-rattling from the 
>> layer 1-2 providers.
> 
> But how do we GET there?  I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own the 
> layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws and 
> policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer 1 
> facilities to the customer's location.
>> And as a byproduct we can stop the ridiculous debate on Net Neutrality which 
>> is molded daily by telecom lobbyists.
> 
> Yes, that would be nice.  But where's a feasible path to this ultimate goal?
> 
> jc
> 
> 

the point of the bubble analogy had more to do with poor speculation driving 
poor investments than it had to do with the nature of the build outs.  I don't 
really think it would be far-fetched to see it happen again in broadband 
(perhaps in a better economy), but then it's only my opinion, everyone has them.

the deeper point I was trying to make:  all of this (the market evolution) has 
a detrimental effect on the Internet-consuming public and while the rest of 
world leads the USA in broadband deployment (pick any category) we debate, lag, 
and are currently driving policies that only further the patchwork of 
deployment and ineffective service we already have.

jy

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Jeremy Bresley


On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.  You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
that cost too much.  Rather, if  you read carefully the problem was
that Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South (all mentioned by name in the
article) wanted to deliver video over FIOS/DSL.  Most areas had
coverage rules, to be a cable provider you had to pass 95%+ of the
houses or such, and these folks didn't meet many of the local rules
and went to the government for help.


I think that I recall encountering one or two such places in the past,
but, I cannot recall them to make a specific citation. Certainly it is the
exception and not the rule.

Owen



Cedar Rapids, IA is served by both Mediacom (incumbent/original cable 
company) and Imon (spinoff from McLeodUSA where they used to be called 
McLeodUSA ATS).  As well as having Qwest for telco service.


ATS started as an overbuild to compete at the local level in MCLD's 
hometown.  They were started circa 1997, and are still in business 
today, so they survived the last 2 bubbles.  And they caused Mediacom to 
keep prices down, and compete to offer additional services in Cedar 
Rapids long before they were available in other cities in their footprint.


So examples of competitive overbuilds being successful do exist.  Maybe 
Google's fiber build will inspire some other companies to try to compete 
in this fashion.


Full disclosure: I worked for MCLD from 98-05, and in the ATS division 
from 00-05.


Jeremy

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Seth Mattinen

On 12/20/2010 11:44, JC Dill wrote:
>  On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
>>> operators.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
>> the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston).  Parts of the
>> SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
>> (RCN, WOW and several others).
> 
> Can you name/locate the part of the SF Bay Area where this has happened?
> 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+fransisco

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
> the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston).  Parts of the
> SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
> (RCN, WOW and several others).  Nontrivial capital is required for the 
> build-and-maintain of physical plant, so most all have shrunk since the 
> bubble popping.

Interesting, I figured a few major cities would have a second
provider, being able to high a large high rise or apartment complex
might make the economics make sense.

From the first google result for "cable overbuilder"
(http://www.satelliteguys.us/live-industry-news-feeds/62015-cable-overbuilders-stage-comeback-near-death.html)
cuz "I'm feeling lucky". :)

  As the biggest cable overbuilder and the 12th largest MSO in the U.S.,
  RCN now boasts about 409,000 overall customers in its large urban
  markets, which include Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington,
  D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

So if you cherry pick for where an overbuild makes sense, you get
409k subscribers.  To compare, Comcast has 23 million subscribers
(video only, see http://www.cmcsk.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=523403)
and in fact lost 275,000 _in the third quarter_ alone
(http://broadcastengineering.com/news/comcast-loses-subscribers-internet-takes-toll-20101101/).

Which brings us back to the argument at hand, the problem is a
combination of factors, regulatority (franchise issues), physical
(plant in ground, and cost) and money (no one will finance it), but
the net result is that even just adding one provider makes sense
in only the smallest fraction of the country.  Allowing more folks
to put plant in the ground is simply not useful to getting real
compeition to the vast majority of American homes.  We need to share
the plant that is already there

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

pgprM3GlAc4NT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


 On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]

And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.

[snip]

Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston).  Parts of the
SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
(RCN, WOW and several others).


Can you name/locate the part of the SF Bay Area where this has happened?

jc

RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread George Bonser



> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
> 
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen  gerbil.net> wrote:
> > Running a wire to everyone's house is a natural monopoly. It just
> > doesn't make sense, financially or technically, to try and manage 50
> > different companies all trying to install 50 different wires into
> every
> > house just to have competition at the IP layer. It also wouldn't
make
> 
> What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
> install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
> that is a good way to invest their finite resources.  This is why we
> see several options for local loops in the "business district" of
> every sizable city, as well as in many newly-developed areas such as
> industrial parks.  These infrastructure builds are expensive, the
> CLECs had limited logistical capabilities and could only manage so
> many projects at once, and obviously, they focused their efforts on
> the parts of town where return-on-investment was likely to be highest.
>  Businesses often do have several good choices for voice, data,
> Internet, and so on.  Cogent is an example of an essentially
> Internet-only service having some degree of success at this without
> even offering voice, or initially even transport, products.

Also, there are two ways in to most urban and suburban home.  There is
the telco and there is the "cable" company.  There is no reason those
two paths should not compete for the same services, and they do across
an increasing area of the US.  The rural areas, though, are a completely
different story.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze 
> wrote:
>> Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines 
>> to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors 
>> to build out their own "facilities-based" lines.  Even with those 
>> incentives, line-based competition failed to materialize to any substantial 
>> degree.  
> 
> They did, I had my $300 T1 for a while years ago, and Covad/Megapath
> et all did a very good business buying the local lines (as UNE)'s
> and selling DSL services over them.  While I don't think the model
> was the success I had hoped for, I think it was a success.
> 

> However through a series of steps the iLEC's have effectively shut
> these folks out of the market.  They lobbied, and won, that Fiber
> is not part of the requirements.  Want to buy UNE "FIOS" fiber?
> Verizon won't sell it, the government won't make them.  The AT&T's
> of the world went and installed "FTTN" (Fiber to the Node), where
> a node serves a small neighborhood.  This allows them to be less
> than 1m from the house and offer up to 24Mbps DSL.  The other
> providers sued saying they need space in the nodes, and lost.  So
> Covad gets to be in the CO, with 20kft of copper, while AT&T gets
> to be in the node with 3kft of copper to the user.
> 
The argument being made is that the CLECs could run their own
copper from their own COs to the residences. I don't buy that argument,
but, that is the argument being made.

Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell higher
level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical plant.
The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the physical
plant to higher level service providers on an equal footing.

Unfortunately, the market forces have way too much invested in the
status quo and the lobbyists will block this at every turn. A grass roots
consumer movement could probably change that, but, it would require
an impractical level of consumer education on the subject.

>> 
>> The exclusivity for cable providers went away with the Cable Television 
>> Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which you can read about in 
>> the Background section of the FCC's 2007 Order Implementation of Section 
>> 621(a)(1) (the first of two orders that sought to further remove local 
>> control over many aspects of the franchising process):
>> 
>> http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/03/21/E7-5119/implementation-of-section-621a1-of-the-cable-communications-policy-act-of-1984-as-amended-by-the#p-21
> 
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.  You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
> second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
> that cost too much.  Rather, if  you read carefully the problem was
> that Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South (all mentioned by name in the
> article) wanted to deliver video over FIOS/DSL.  Most areas had
> coverage rules, to be a cable provider you had to pass 95%+ of the
> houses or such, and these folks didn't meet many of the local rules
> and went to the government for help.
> 
I think that I recall encountering one or two such places in the past,
but, I cannot recall them to make a specific citation. Certainly it is the
exception and not the rule.

Owen

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Joe Provo

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
> So from about 1996 to 2000 we had competition.  They then figured out
> how to rig the system so there is no effective competition, and so far
> the government has been A-Ok with that.

You also miss the part about the capital markets being effective closed
after the bubble burst closing that window.  

[snip]
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.  
[snip]

Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston).  Parts of the
SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
(RCN, WOW and several others).  Nontrivial capital is required for the 
build-and-maintain of physical plant, so most all have shrunk since the 
bubble popping.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze 
wrote:
> Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines 
> to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors 
> to build out their own "facilities-based" lines.  Even with those incentives, 
> line-based competition failed to materialize to any substantial degree.  

They did, I had my $300 T1 for a while years ago, and Covad/Megapath
et all did a very good business buying the local lines (as UNE)'s
and selling DSL services over them.  While I don't think the model
was the success I had hoped for, I think it was a success.

However through a series of steps the iLEC's have effectively shut
these folks out of the market.  They lobbied, and won, that Fiber
is not part of the requirements.  Want to buy UNE "FIOS" fiber?
Verizon won't sell it, the government won't make them.  The AT&T's
of the world went and installed "FTTN" (Fiber to the Node), where
a node serves a small neighborhood.  This allows them to be less
than 1m from the house and offer up to 24Mbps DSL.  The other
providers sued saying they need space in the nodes, and lost.  So
Covad gets to be in the CO, with 20kft of copper, while AT&T gets
to be in the node with 3kft of copper to the user.

So from about 1996 to 2000 we had competition.  They then figured out
how to rig the system so there is no effective competition, and so far
the government has been A-Ok with that.

> The exclusivity for cable providers went away with the Cable Television 
> Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which you can read about in 
> the Background section of the FCC's 2007 Order Implementation of Section 
> 621(a)(1) (the first of two orders that sought to further remove local 
> control over many aspects of the franchising process):
> 
> http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/03/21/E7-5119/implementation-of-section-621a1-of-the-cable-communications-policy-act-of-1984-as-amended-by-the#p-21

And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.  You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
that cost too much.  Rather, if  you read carefully the problem was
that Verizon, AT&T, and Bell South (all mentioned by name in the
article) wanted to deliver video over FIOS/DSL.  Most areas had
coverage rules, to be a cable provider you had to pass 95%+ of the
houses or such, and these folks didn't meet many of the local rules
and went to the government for help.

So the government did the minimum to get folks who already had
infrastructure in the ground the rules to use it to provide this
service.

The result is not competition, but a government sponsored duopoliy.
This didn't bring more players to the table, it just let those already
at the table offer a full set of overlapping services.  Likely a good
step, but not the same as getting new entrants into the market.

--
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

pgp6Dxc1z68eG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Lamar Owen

On Monday, December 20, 2010 01:22:17 pm JC Dill wrote:
> But how do we GET there?  I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own 
> the layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws 
> and policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer 
> 1 facilities to the customer's location.

The 'last mile' is the key, and is where 'net neutrality' and natural monopoly 
interests collide.  He who owns the last mile owns what the user can and can 
not do.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Lamar Owen

On Monday, December 20, 2010 12:20:37 pm Steve Schultze wrote:
> There are no government-enforced monopoly rights on cable or copper/fiber 
> these days.  

Unless you qualify as a 47USC153(37) 'Rural Telephone Company' and then there 
are.  Example being 253(f).

Until recently I was served by such an ILEC.  Recently being November 2010.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Steve Schultze

On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet 
>> services.  Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and 
>> the definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the 
>> FCC, as I noted here (in response to the first message in which you raised 
>> this concern):
>> 
>> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/029444.html
> 
> As someone who has a "City Telephone Tax" on both my cellular and wireline
> bills, I beg to differ.

Fascinating.  You appear to be right.  For some reason I thought this was 
standardized at the federal level by the FCC, but it seems to vary depending on 
the state.  

For example, it seems that such taxes are prohibited in Oregon:
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/305.823

But permitted in New York:
http://www.dps.state.ny.us/TelecomTaxesSurcharges.html
("Not to exceed 1% except in Buffalo, Rochester and Yonkers, where the rate may 
not exceed 3%.")

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


 On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:


Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you believe that 
player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of players 1-5?  What if player 
two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on a speaking circuit, starts telling the 
market that his bandwidth demands are growing at the rate of 300% per year and players 
6-10 jump into the market with strong financial backing?  While I believe in free-market 
economics and I will agree with you that the situation will eventually sort itself out; 
thousands of ditch-diggers and poll-climbers will lose their jobs, but this is "the 
way of things."


Apples and oranges.  The telcom bubble didn't involve building out *to 
the home*.  The cost to build a data center and put in modems or lease 
dry copper for DSL is dramatically lower than the cost to build out to 
the home.  It was financially feasible (even if not the best decision, 
especially if you based the decision on a provably false assumption on 
market growth) to be player 6 in the early days of the Internet, it's 
not financially feasible to be player 6 to build out fiber to the home.

I do  not agree that the end-consumer should be put through this fiasco and I 
am confident that the money spent digging more ditches and stringing more ugly 
overhead cables would be better spent on layers 3 and more importantly on 
services at layers 4-7.


The problem is getting fair access to layer 1 for all players.  If it 
takes breaking the monopoly rules for putting in layer 1 facilities to 
get past this log jam, then that may be the solution.



  The utopian solution (pun intended) would be to develop a local, state, 
federal system of broadband similar to the highway system of roads.  Let those 
broadband providers who can compete by creating layer 3 backbones and services 
at layers 4-7 (and layer 1-2 with wireless) survive. Let the innovation 
continue at layers 4-7 without constant saber-rattling from the layer 1-2 
providers.


But how do we GET there?  I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own 
the layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws 
and policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer 
1 facilities to the customer's location.

And as a byproduct we can stop the ridiculous debate on Net Neutrality which is 
molded daily by telecom lobbyists.


Yes, that would be nice.  But where's a feasible path to this ultimate goal?

jc

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

> 
> Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet services. 
>  Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and the 
> definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the FCC, 
> as I noted here (in response to the first message in which you raised this 
> concern):
> 
> http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/029444.html

As someone who has a "City Telephone Tax" on both my cellular and wireline
bills, I beg to differ.

Owen

Re: Why do ISPs still not do packet source verification in 2010?

2010-12-20 Thread Nick Hilliard


On 20/12/2010 14:41, William Pitcock wrote:

[...] but the 6500
series chassis can do IP-level ACL in hardware.


as regards urpf on the sup720 / rsp720: ipv4, yes; ipv6, no.

BTW, it's worth asking this question when purchasing new equipment: "does 
the equipment support both loose and strict ipv6 urpf in hardware right 
now.  if not, what is the timescale for implementation of each?".


The results are currently not very good.

Vendors: please note that support for ipv6 urpf (both strict and loose) is 
a basic networking requirement these days.


Nick

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Michael DeMan


On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> 
> Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation 
> between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require 
> that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any 
> company who wishes to provide IP to the end user. But that would take a 
> lot of work to implement, and there are billions of dollars at work 
> lobbying against it, so I don't expect it to happen any time soon. :)


+1 on this - it is the source of a huge number of problems in the industry.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style


On Dec 20, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

>> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org  Sun Dec 19 23:31:25 
>> 2010
>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
>> From: JC Dill 
>> To: NANOG list 
>> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>> 
>>  On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> You can send letters
>> 
>> Technically, this is illegal.  You can send "documents" via FedEx and UPS.
>> 
>>> just as well as packages via the other carriers.
>>> 
>>> The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
>>> et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
>> 
>> No, they can't.
>> 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
>> 
>>> They could not call it mail. They could call it "first class document 
>>> delivery."
>>> 
>>> However, the reality is that they probably couldn't sustain their business
>>> at that price point.
>>> 
>>> The USPS doesn't have an actual monopoly so much as ownership of
>>> the term Mail almost like a trademark.
>> 
>> 
>> It's not just a trademark, it's the class of service.  Just try starting 
>> up a regular mail service, and see how far you get before they SHUT YOU 
>> DOWN.
> 
> Actually, the gov't -won't- shut you down in that situation.  They *WILL*,
> however make you pay -them- the statutory "first-class" postage rate for
> each such piece you carry.
> 
> Aside: put a 'personal' sealed envelope communication inside a FedEx/UPS/
> whatever shimpent, and you are _supposed_ to (a) 'declare' it on the 
> outside of the package, and (b) put the appropriate postage stamps on
> the package.
> 
> The "FedEx' 'overnight letter' (and other carrier equivalents) is a really
> cute case of threading the needle between what does and does not require
> first-class postage.  It makes _interesting_ reading to review the actual
> tariffs and express service 'rules' on what you can send via that service.
> 
> 
Like I said... Once you untangle all the regulations, the net effect is not
a monopoly so much as a byzantine set of laws and regulations designed
to make it look like you have to pay USPS no matter what when in
reality that's not the case.

For all practical purposes, the post office faces what competition is
practical.

Owen

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Steve Schultze

Evidently this list is interested in telecommunications law.  I was worried it 
would be considered OT, but since people are talking about it, here are some 
clarifications...

On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> They have been granted a monopoly by the local government for
>> wireline services, and in exchange for that monopoly need to act
>> in the public's interest.  In the TV world this is things like
>> running the local community interest channel, and paying a franchise
>> fee.  In the IP world we're still developing the criteria, but it's
>> not unreasonable to think they might have some government imposed
>> requirements there as well.
> 
> The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame government
> regulation is not the solution.  Let everyone compete on a level playing
> field, not by allowing one company to buy a monopoly enforced by men with 
> guns.

On Dec 19, 2010, at 9:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> Why not open up the market for telco wiring and just see what happens?

There are no government-enforced monopoly rights on cable or copper/fiber these 
days.  The exclusivity for the telcos went away in the Bell breakup and the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996.  See, for example, the section of the Act 
codified at 47 USC 253:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_0253000-.html

Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines to 
competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors to 
build out their own "facilities-based" lines.  Even with those incentives, 
line-based competition failed to materialize to any substantial degree.  

The exclusivity for cable providers went away with the Cable Television 
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, which you can read about in 
the Background section of the FCC's 2007 Order Implementation of Section 
621(a)(1) (the first of two orders that sought to further remove local control 
over many aspects of the franchising process):

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2007/03/21/E7-5119/implementation-of-section-621a1-of-the-cable-communications-policy-act-of-1984-as-amended-by-the#p-21

On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:37 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> What I am concerned with happening is a cash-strapped city seeing
> Comcast (or any provider, really) trying to charge for access to
> subscribers and then the city saying "wait a minute, who are you to sell
> access to our people to a third party?  If you are going to charge third
> parties for access to those eyeballs, then you can pay us, in turn for
> that access."  And from there it all goes down hill.

Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet services.  
Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and the 
definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the FCC, 
as I noted here (in response to the first message in which you raised this 
concern):

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2010-December/029444.html

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Jeffrey S. Young

On 20/12/2010, at 12:25 AM, JC Dill  wrote:

> On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, JC Dill  said:
>>> Why not open up the
>>> market for telco wiring and just see what happens?  There might be 5 or
>>> perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
>>> 50 - it simply won't make financial sense for additional players to try
>>> to enter the market after a certain number of players are already in.
>> Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
>> There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
>> the wires on the poles.
>> 
> Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
>>> And there certainly won't be 50 all trying to service the same neighborhood.
>> And there's the other half of the problem.  Without franchise agreements
>> that require (mostly) universal service, you'd get 50 companies trying
>> to serve the richest neighborhoods in town,
> 
> No you wouldn't.  Remember those diminishing returns.  At most you would 
> likely have 4 or 5.  If you are player 6 you aren't going to spend the money 
> to build out in an area where there are 5 other players already - you will 
> build out in a different neighborhood where there are only 2 or 3 players.  
> Then, later, you might buy out the weakest of the 5 players in the rich 
> neighborhood to gain access to that neighborhood when player 5 is on the 
> verge of going BK.
> 
> It's also silly to think that being player 6 to build out in a "richer 
> neighborhood" would be a good move.  The rich like to get a good deal just 
> like everyone else.  (They didn't *get* rich by spending their money 
> unwisely.)
> 
> As an example, I will point people to the neighborhood between Page Mill Road 
> and Stanford University, an area originally built out as housing for Stanford 
> professors.  They have absolutely awful broadband options in that area.  They 
> have been *begging* for someone to come in with a better option.  This is a 
> very wealthy community (by US national standards) with median family incomes 
> in the 6 figures according to the 2000 census data.
> 
> Right now they can only get slow and expensive DSL or slightly faster and 
> also expensive cable service.
> 
> The city of Palo Alto has sonet fiber running right along the edges of this 
> neighborhood. (see, http://poulton.net/ftth/slides.ps.pdf slide 18.)
> 
> It's a perfect place for an ISP to put in a junction box and build a local 
> fiber network to connect these homes with fiber to the Palo Alto fiber.  But 
> apparently the regulatory obstacles make it too complicated.  THAT is what 
> I'm talking about above.  Since the incumbents don't want to provide improved 
> services, get rid of those obstacles, let new players move in and put in 
> service without so many obstacles.
> 
> jc
> 
> 
> 
Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you 
believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of 
players 1-5?  What if player two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on a 
speaking circuit, starts telling the market that his bandwidth demands are 
growing at the rate of 300% per year and players 6-10 jump into the market with 
strong financial backing?  While I believe in free-market economics and I will 
agree with you that the situation will eventually sort itself out; thousands of 
ditch-diggers and poll-climbers will lose their jobs, but this is "the way of 
things."  

I do  not agree that the end-consumer should be put through this fiasco and I 
am confident that the money spent digging more ditches and stringing more ugly 
overhead cables would be better spent on layers 3 and more importantly on 
services at layers 4-7.  

My perception of the current situation in the USA?  We have just gone through 
an era in which the FCC and administration defined "competition" as having more 
than one provider able to provide service (200 kb/s or better) within a zip 
code.  A zip code can cover quite a large area.  This left the major players to 
their own devices and we saw them overbuild TV and broadband services into the 
more lucrative areas (because as established providers they actually do have a 
pretty good idea of the financial condition of their competitors within an 
area).  Quite often 'lucrative' did not equal affluent, lucrative is more a 
measure of consumption (think VoD) than median household income.  The point is 
that the free-market evolution of broadband has produced a patchwork of 
services that is hard to decipher and even harder to influence.   The utopian 
solution (pun intended) would be to develop a local, state, federal system of 
broadband similar to the highway system of roads.  Let those broadband 
providers who can compete by creating layer 3 backbones and services at layers 
4-7 (and layer 1-2 with wireless) survive. Let the innovation continue at 
layers 4-7 without constant saber-rattling from the layer 1-2 provide

Re: Comcast vs Level 3 - This time with video

2010-12-20 Thread Richard A Steenbergen

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:59:31AM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> > A simplified explanation of the situation between Level 3 and Comcast,
> from the perspective of a Comcast customer who is asking for the same thing
> Comcast is asking for. :)
> 
> > http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8124137/
> 
> I have to question Richard on this interaction though. There is no way 
> in hell a Comcast customer service rep would respond like that. Not at 
> least without putting you on hold 5 times and then still, wouldn't 
> know what in the hell you're talking about. In the end, the service 
> rep would tell you they need to dispatch someone to your house.

Hah, yes they did seem to skip over the usual "bad ratios? have you 
tried rebooting your cable modem?" part didn't they. I suppose I should 
have added the phrase "highly fictionalized", but Xtranormal has 
something against allowing punctuation in their descriptions, and the 
existing one was confusing enough.

FYI a bunch of people complained that the voices were hard to 
distinguish, so I did a modified version which is a little more 
intelligable. It's also linked to from the original, as part of the same 
series.

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8134089/

-- 
Richard A Steenbergenhttp://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

RE: Comcast vs Level 3 - This time with video

2010-12-20 Thread Randy Epstein

> A simplified explanation of the situation between Level 3 and Comcast,
from the perspective of a Comcast customer who is asking for the same thing
Comcast is asking for. :)

> http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8124137/

I have to question Richard on this interaction though. There is no way in
hell a Comcast customer service rep would respond like that. Not at least
without putting you on hold 5 times and then still, wouldn't know what in
the hell you're talking about. In the end, the service rep would tell you
they need to dispatch someone to your house.

Randy

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Steve Schultze

On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:45 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:

>> http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_wires447x625.jpg
> 
> This is not the result of many different providers, it's the result of one 
> provider stringing many lines to supply service.  I'm guessing this was 
> before they figured out how to run trunk lines and then split out the calls 
> from the trunk into individual lines closer to the end user's location - or 
> how to bundle lines together, etc.  So each wire we see in that photo is a 
> *single* wire running from the central office to one subscriber (or party 
> line).
> 
>> http://pinkbunnyears.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/telephone-pole.jpg
> 
> That photo isn't due to a situation where there were numerous different 
> providers, it's due to ONE provider with a monopoly, doing a half-assed job.

It should be noted that running an individual line from the central office to 
the subscriber can be a good thing when done in a sensible fashion.  
Amsterdam's Fiber-to-the-Home project called Citynet is an excellent example of 
this.  The city ran a fiber line to each subscriber, which facilitates 
competitive open access to each line (and makes for maximum long-term bandwidth 
per subscriber).

http://opticalreflection.com/2009/02/amsterdam-citynet-scores-a-home-run-for-fibre/

"However, the first decision the Citynet project made was more fundamental: 
should it deploy a passive optical network (PON) architecture or what Wagter 
calls “home run” fibre, which is a point-to-point topology. PONs share fibre 
and equipment near the head-end of the network, which does result in some cost 
savings. But infrastructure sharing does not allow unbundling (allowing other 
service providers to put their equipment into the local exchange). PONs have a 
1:32 splitter in the street cabinet, which means that those 32 customers get 
locked into the same service provider — and that didn’t fit with the city’s 
plan to have an open-access network. (Regulators have proposed bitstream access 
as a solution to this problem, but it’s more complicated to implement.)"

See also:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Robert Bonomi

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org  Sun Dec 19 23:31:25 
> 2010
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
> From: JC Dill 
> To: NANOG list 
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
>   On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > You can send letters
>
> Technically, this is illegal.  You can send "documents" via FedEx and UPS.
>
> > just as well as packages via the other carriers.
> >
> > The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
> > et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
>
> No, they can't.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes
>
> > They could not call it mail. They could call it "first class document 
> > delivery."
> >
> > However, the reality is that they probably couldn't sustain their business
> > at that price point.
> >
> > The USPS doesn't have an actual monopoly so much as ownership of
> > the term Mail almost like a trademark.
>
>
> It's not just a trademark, it's the class of service.  Just try starting 
> up a regular mail service, and see how far you get before they SHUT YOU 
> DOWN.

Actually, the gov't -won't- shut you down in that situation.  They *WILL*,
however make you pay -them- the statutory "first-class" postage rate for
each such piece you carry.

Aside: put a 'personal' sealed envelope communication inside a FedEx/UPS/
whatever shimpent, and you are _supposed_ to (a) 'declare' it on the 
outside of the package, and (b) put the appropriate postage stamps on
the package.

The "FedEx' 'overnight letter' (and other carrier equivalents) is a really
cute case of threading the needle between what does and does not require
first-class postage.  It makes _interesting_ reading to review the actual
tariffs and express service 'rules' on what you can send via that service.

Re: UN mulls internet regulation options

2010-12-20 Thread Eric Brunner-Williams


On 12/19/10 8:28 PM, John Curran wrote:


... I also intervened twice requested clarification of exactly how a government-only 
decision body for Internet policy would fulfill the "consultation with all 
stakeholders" paragraph specified in the Tunis agenda. The answer from several 
countries was not encouraging, suggesting the consultation could be done in the UN manner 
through their Member State delegations.  This government-only view is being asserted by 
several countries, but India, Brazil, South Africa and Saudi Arabia are carrying it most 
strongly ...


john (et al),

not that my year as a regional officer within the at-large advisory 
committee of icann is a pedestal much grander than an acronym to 
laborious declaim, but the fundamental claim for the at large is to 
provide an institutional means for public interests not necessarily 
addressed by national governments, nor necessarily addressed by other 
supporting organizations or advisory committees, in the curious 
public-private multi-stakeholder model ira magaziner stuck us with.


india abandoned public control of the .in name space, providing the 
operational franchise to afilias, a for-profit registry services 
provider who's facilities are located in north america.


south africa is currently in the process of re-organizing the .za name 
space, having issued a tender for consulting, won by ausreg, a 
for-profit registry services provider who's facilities are located in 
australia. while this is not a complete retreat from public control of 
a public resource, as in the case of india, the rfp proposed a 
subsequent rfp which would similarly transfer operational control to a 
for-profit registry services provider.


brazil's public name space operator is, to the best of my knowledge, 
is reasonably well-informed of the outstanding issues in the icann 
experience in a public-private multi-stakeholder model, and reasonably 
content with the icann instance of this model. fix yes, break no.


saudi arabia presents a more nuanced case, at icann. the state is 
aware that the ratio of arabic langauge content "on the net" is not 
proportional to the ratio of arabic language speakers. this is the 
focus of a government initiated program. the state, through the league 
of arab states, has published an rfi for contractors to operate a pair 
of name spaces, "arabi" in arabic script, and "arab" in latin script. 
the adoption of the country code name spaces by the aggregate members 
of the league of arab states, all of which have significant 
administrative costs to would-be registrants, is less than the 
adoption of the .ir name space, which has a healthy and competitive 
(though consolidation is taking place for market economic reasons) 
registrar regime, and vastly less effective "statist" administrative 
cost to would-be registrants. in sum, the state is aware that 
"statist" approaches to arabic language uptake and operational 
investment in infrastructure compare poorly to alternatives. in other 
areas, from wireline to wireless voice, to petroleum, that state uses 
non-state resources to promote public policy goals.


as the gac is working more closely with the alac than at any prior 
point in the past, and the gac has vigorously and overtly represented 
private interests (primarily trademark holders), the "governments 
only" model advanced elsewhere seems ... largely uninformed by the 
operational practice of a working policy body with significant 
government participation as governments.



I hope this helps provide some context as you requested.


it provides some specific questions to pursue. note that there will be 
an intersessional meeting arising from the gac's formal notice to the 
board that it considered its advice on two subject areas to have been 
rejected by the board, triggering the icann bylaws.


are the respective wsis++ folks are not in sync with the respective 
icann++ folks?


granted, almost all of this is on the names side of the {addr,asn,dns}
triple that icann is self-or-other-tasked to administer, so the v6 and 
rir bits are mostly not addressed.


thanks for the pointers, i'll catch up on the wsis bits i've ignored 
for most of a decade, but it will be in my spare time, and there are 
so many people in wsis i find less pleasant company than a room full 
of trademark lawyers.


eric

p.s. the acronym to laborious declaim comes with no other benefits, so 
someone with travel nickles will have to cover the june wsis in 
geneva. as i don't work for core any longer i can't wrangle a trip to 
check on the fondue supplies or the secretariat operations or ...

Why do ISPs still not do packet source verification in 2010?

2010-12-20 Thread William Pitcock

Hi,

I am wondering why it seems that many ISPs still do not do packet
source verification in 2010?  Just last night I had to deal with a DoS
attack that would have been impossible if more ISPs did packet source
verification.

I mean, it's 2010.  We can do IP-level ACLs in hardware on most of the
current routing platforms on the market.  I know it can be done on
Cisco, Brocade, etc.  Not sure on the new NX-OS stuff, but the 6500
series chassis can do IP-level ACL in hardware.

The ACLs aren't hard either, you set an ACL forbidding traffic from
anything other than an access-list containing their allocated IP
ranges...

Grumble.

(on the other hand, it's not like spoofing does any good anyway... if
you're willing to work the netflow data and call your upstreams to get
at their netflow data you can easily trace each bot in the botnet to
it's origination network which can then look at their traffic flow data
and shut it down...)

William

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Bret Clark


On 12/20/2010 06:55 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
that is a good way to invest their finite resources.


Yes and no, we tried that way back when but found out that there were 
rules in place allowing only 3 lines on a pole (Elec, tele, cable), 
basically the rules are there to stop poles from have a gazzillon lines 
on them; a throwback from the early 1900's. Back then there were 
numerous Telephone companies competing for the same customer and poles 
became a nightmare with wires. It was common for competitors to cut 
other competitors lines back then.


Sure CLEC's could go underground, but outside of the expense, the 
permit's process would be a nightmare. Where there was conduit available 
we'd go that route, but Verizon would give us a hard time about it.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM, JC Dill  wrote:
> Department of Telecommunications (DoT), is the monopoly operator in India.
>  That photo isn't due to a situation where there were numerous different
> providers, it's due to ONE provider with a monopoly, doing a half-assed job.

DoT is the regulator - kind of like the FCC

The monopoly provider (still a very large one) was called BSNL [Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd - India Telecom Company, Ltd] as opposed to VSNL /
Videsh ... (Videsh = Foreign)

VSNL was privatized some years back as you all know .. and as for
local phone service you can buy that from at least 4 or 5 nationwide
landline providers, besides several cellphone providers.

"Monopoly" is what there was like a decade back.

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

Re: UN mulls internet regulation options

2010-12-20 Thread Jorge Amodio

> you may want to look at how television and radio were captured and
> turned into 500 channels of crap.

but now is digital and HD crap, wired and wireless :-)

perhaps we have to develop the Content Removal Admin Protocol, aka CRAP

-J

Re: UN mulls internet regulation options

2010-12-20 Thread Randy Bush

> It is amusing to see how with the passing of time we went through the
> cycles of government research, open collaboration, widespread
> cooperation, global ubiquity, international coordination, trademark
> protection, commitments affirmation, content regulation, and we seem
> to be now in the government masturbation phase, it will pass.
> 
> and IP packets keep flowing ... and will keep flowing.

you may want to look at how television and radio were captured and
turned into 500 channels of crap.

randy

Re: UN mulls internet regulation options

2010-12-20 Thread Jorge Amodio

It is amusing to see how with the passing of time we went through the
cycles of government research, open collaboration, widespread
cooperation, global ubiquity, international coordination, trademark
protection, commitments affirmation, content regulation, and we seem
to be now in the government masturbation phase, it will pass.

and IP packets keep flowing ... and will keep flowing.

-J

RE: used / refurb voip phones?

2010-12-20 Thread Anthony Francis - Handy Networks LLC

Aastra http://www.aastra.com/products-desk-phones.htm

Thank you and have a  nice day,
Anthony Francis

-Original Message-
From: Shacolby Jackson [mailto:shaco...@bluejeansnet.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:10 PM
To: na...@merit.edu
Subject: OT: used / refurb voip phones?

A little off topic but anyone have any recommendations for vendors selling
used voip handsets, especially Polycom? Looking for some IP335 or better.

There are only a couple used gear resellers I trust and none seem to carry
Polycom, only Cisco and even those only seem to have low end handsets.

-shac

Re: AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool.

2010-12-20 Thread Heinrich Strauss

I'm kinda fearing this in South Africa, as we have a few large 
incumbents who aren't really driving -NG versions of protocols.


They also have a "prove to us it's broken, and we may look at it in a 
few months' time"-attitude towards it. :O


So 32-bit ASNs and IPv6 equally aren't really being driven, apart from 
by a few key Academic players.



Just my ZAR 0.02
-H.

On 2010/12/20 14:43, bill manning wrote:

are y'all ready for this gift?

--bill

Begin forwarded message:


From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)"
Date: December 20, 2010 3:16:42 PST
To: annou...@afrinic.net
Subject: [AfriNIC-announce] AfriNIC to assign AS Numbers from a common 32-bit 
pool.

Dear Colleagues,

According to the "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to the
Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)" -
http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-ASN-001.htm , IANA
will cease to make any distinction between 16 and 32-bit only
ASN blocks on 31 December 2010 when making allocations to RIRs.

After this date, the RIRs will assign AS Numbers from an
undifferentiated 32-bit ASN allocation pool.

Consequently, for any entity requesting an ASN, AfriNIC will cease
to present the ability to opt for a 16- or 32-bit ASN, and will
start issuing ASNs from a common 32-bit pool.

We therefore urge all IP network operators to ensure that their
routing infrastructure is 32-bit ASN compatible.

Kind regards,

Ernest Byaruhanga.




___
announce mailing list
annou...@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce

AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool.

2010-12-20 Thread bill manning

are y'all ready for this gift?

--bill

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" 
> Date: December 20, 2010 3:16:42 PST
> To: annou...@afrinic.net
> Subject: [AfriNIC-announce] AfriNIC to assign AS Numbers from a common 32-bit 
> pool.
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> According to the "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to the
> Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)" -
> http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-ASN-001.htm , IANA
> will cease to make any distinction between 16 and 32-bit only
> ASN blocks on 31 December 2010 when making allocations to RIRs.
> 
> After this date, the RIRs will assign AS Numbers from an
> undifferentiated 32-bit ASN allocation pool.
> 
> Consequently, for any entity requesting an ASN, AfriNIC will cease
> to present the ability to opt for a 16- or 32-bit ASN, and will
> start issuing ASNs from a common 32-bit pool.
> 
> We therefore urge all IP network operators to ensure that their
> routing infrastructure is 32-bit ASN compatible.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Ernest Byaruhanga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> announce mailing list
> annou...@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Jeff Wheeler

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen  
wrote:
> Running a wire to everyone's house is a natural monopoly. It just
> doesn't make sense, financially or technically, to try and manage 50
> different companies all trying to install 50 different wires into every
> house just to have competition at the IP layer. It also wouldn't make

What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
that is a good way to invest their finite resources.  This is why we
see several options for local loops in the "business district" of
every sizable city, as well as in many newly-developed areas such as
industrial parks.  These infrastructure builds are expensive, the
CLECs had limited logistical capabilities and could only manage so
many projects at once, and obviously, they focused their efforts on
the parts of town where return-on-investment was likely to be highest.
 Businesses often do have several good choices for voice, data,
Internet, and so on.  Cogent is an example of an essentially
Internet-only service having some degree of success at this without
even offering voice, or initially even transport, products.

The reason we will not see competitive facility builds to residences
is they have a very long ROI scale.  Everything in the traditional
telecommunications world did.  Many POTS customers still pay a fee for
DTMF or "touch tone dialing", because when their phone company
invested in new cards and software to support DTMF signalling, they
passed those expenses on to consumers.  These upgrades cost on the
order of a thousand dollars per phone line, but consumers could get
the benefit of DTMF by paying a couple dollars per month.  See also:
call waiting, caller ID, and so on.  I don't know about you, but I was
still using an "ATDP" dialing string until cable and DSL became
available to me at home (in about 2002) because I did not want to pay
the extra fee for touch tone dialing or other features I didn't need
on a dedicated modem line. ;)

We see examples of more choice available to business consumers than
residences, due to economies of scale, every day.  A business,
apartment community, or neighborhood association can choose from
multiple dumpster-tip services for trash collection.  Most residents
do not have enough trash volume to justify a bulky dumpster, so their
only practical choice is whatever curb-side trash collection company
has an agreement with their local government.

-- 
Jeff S Wheeler 
Sr Network Operator  /  Innovative Network Concepts

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

2010-12-20 Thread Choprboy

On Sunday 19 December 2010 22:25, JC Dill wrote:
>   On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
> > There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
> > the wires on the poles.
>
> Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
>

It wasn't the earlier days of electricity persay, it was the early days the 
telegraph (late 1800s and early 1900s). Dozens, if not hundreds, of different 
telegraph companies raced put up different wires and poles to claim the 
market (and sometimes cut-down each others wires). Fraught with fear of 
completely losing any view of the sky and the dangers of so much shoddy work 
over citizens heads (wires would frequently fall in storms and such), New 
York and many other cities began restricting the number of providers that 
could service a given area.

The "classic" New York telegraph wiring nightmare image:
http://www.vny.cuny.edu/Search/search_res_image.php?id=363

Other images:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/onceandfutureweb/database/seca/case3-artifacts/photoslg/photo1.jpg
http://www.maggieblanck.com/NewYork/SU.html
http://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/when-the-city-was-criss-crossed-by-wires/
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/graphics/photos0708/blizzard_1888h.jpg

Adrian

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style