Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) 'peering' here probably really means 'bgp peer', and it probably also means to be used in a 'mutually benefiting the two parties' way. which it seems it would be beneficial to use the pipe to pick up netflix traffic from the exchange switch, AND to pick up other peer networks' traffic at the same switch. This does mean you'd need to use an ASN and do BGP in a public sort of fashion though. You COULD just get a single link to netflix in DEN, but that seems dumb (or wasteful, or silly... or sub-optimal)... when there's a switch fabric to exploit in offloading some of your traffic and reducing hopcount between your customers and their interested content. ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering. It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. ISP's peer to avoid costs, not all costs, but some costs. Hopefully the 'peering arrangement' is more beneficial than just straight transit between the two parties else you'd just use transit. -chris
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote: Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger ones. And a much larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being in the club to start with. While the share of revenue argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address argument: Annual Fee Max CIDR$/IP $500 /22 0.49 $1000/20 0.24 $2000/18 0.12 $4000/16 0.06 $8000/14 0.03 $16000 /12 0.02 $32000/12 Mastercard! Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume purchases. I note that even LARIAT does this. You charge $60 for 1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps. Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps? It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet community at large. I don't think human beings in general are wired that way. - Matt -- Politics and religion are just like software and hardware. They all suck, the documentation is provably incorrect, and all the vendors tell lies. -- Andrew Dalgleish, in the Monastery
provisioning (was: endless pissing about vz and netflux)
I recall phoning ATT once asking for 100m service at a commercial address and it took a swat-team of people on the phone to tell me they would be 4x/mo what I was paying.. I politely told them they were too expensive and to not schedule a 8 person conference call for a basic service level. i remember calling a very large telco to order a ds3 (yes, it was a while ago). they transferred me to engineering to see if they had capacity. engineering told me to hang on, and then i heard a lot of rustling of paper. i knew that even if i could get the circuit i would not want it. randy
Re: Net Neutrality...
regarding content, I’m not sure you and I live in the same media space, but I live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote 57 CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)” reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. granted that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they certainly don’t allow for à la carte access - one must take the whole bundle. (blame the FCC) the promise of the Internet was that -anyone- could create and publish. that called for curation skills (assuming equal access to published content) such a system would have allowed for personally tailored content on a global scale. Instead, we have “eyeballs” that are encouraged to spend USD 4/per view of poorly digitized DVD copies of 30 year old movies and all the “Honey Boo Boo” you can handle. And be GRATEFUL for the privilege …. That real, quality content is out there, not part of the IP stable of corporate giants, is indisputable. As is the fact that it is effectively locked out of the Internet at large. (youtube was a grand, failed, experiment) /bill (who will return to his oubliette now) On 14July2014Monday, at 16:15, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman Naslund, Steve wrote: Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved based on mutual benefit or some concept of doing the right thing. For example, at InterAccess Chicago, our peer policy in the late 90s was pretty much the following. 1. Non-profits or educational institutions could private peer with us as long as they bore the cost of the circuit. (this kind of connection was more beneficial to them than us). 2. Comparable sized carriers got to peer with us, with each of us picking up our portions of equipment and circuit cost since it was mutually beneficial. 3. We would peer with anyone at any NAP we had a mutual appearance in. 4. Larger network usual would not peer with smaller networks without some sort of compensation. Seemed to work pretty fair at the time and we managed the backbone by watching customer traffic. If things got congested, you paid for or peered with whoever you needed to in order to get acceptable performance for our customers. The big guys did get to call the shots and made you pay but then again they provided the largest fastest connections so I guess it was fair enough. It may have been the wild west in some ways but at that time everyone needed to get along because if your peering policies were unfair you would get universally shunned and then you would have real problems. I hate that the network operators now feel the need to ask the government to step in. When you ask for that don't be surprised that the government creates a cumbersome mess and disadvantages you in another way. The problem is that the gov does not react at internet speed. I remember the first unbundling agreements and trust me when I say that ourselves and the ILEC both found the gov't rules to be nearly unworkable. We eventually started with the telecom act framework that forced them to the table where they finally sat down with us and said Ok, Ok, what do you really need here and we banged out a pretty good interconnection agreement that was workable for both of us. Well, about as workable as it gets with an ILEC. I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. The customer could care less who pays for what pieces or what is fair because in the end, their service provider is the only one they will punish. If Netflix becomes universally hard to connect to, then they will lose the customers. The customer does not really care why your connectivity sucks, they just know that it does and that if someone better comes along, they are gone. Maybe something better would be some sort of industry group that you could become a member of and that group could resolve peering disputes through some kind of arbitration process. The benefit of being a member could be something like the opportunity to peer with any other member on demand with some sort of cost splitting arrangement. They would need something like a group wide interconnection agreement. The responsibility would then be the industry and not some appointed FCC working group that spends all of their time writing convoluted gibberish. If the group was big enough and powerful enough, the incentive to
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote: (youtube was a grand, failed, experiment) It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. But this is all off topic I guess. Regards, Graham -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote: My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. Well that escalated quickly. You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt, IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN. Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change of addressing for everyone else. Please note, this is not a money making operation for us. Its something we started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth providers when they became available. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Matt, While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is nice, but serves little to no practical purpose. For clarity's sake all 6 of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband subs. And as long as they're happy with their single upstream connectivity picture, more power to them. But the minute they're less than happy with their connectivity option, it would sure be nice to have their own ASN and their own IP space, so that going to a different upstream provider would be possible. Heck, even just having it as a *bargaining point* would be useful. By not having it, they're essentially locking the slave collar around their own neck, and handing the leash to their upstream, along with their wallet. As a freedom-of-choice loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone would subject their business to that level of slavery. But I do acknowledge your point, that for some category of people, they are happy as clams with that arrangement. I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do with Internet access. Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does having an ASN make you an ISP. Thanks! Matt
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 15 July 2014 06:21, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Regards, Baldur
Re: Net Neutrality...
Reality has a well-known liberal bias -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson gra...@airstripone.org.uk wrote: On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote: My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias. Well that escalated quickly. You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm wasn't intended for debate, especially when its so off topic. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: Multi-Vendor Configuration Pusher
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Ryan Shea ryans...@google.com wrote: I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the Apache 2.0 license. Some of you may be interested. https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/ (as a contributor and user externally of this code) excellent :) This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands on) devices. Currently we have the following vendor targets: * aruba * brocade * cisconx * ciscoxr * hp (procurve) * ios * junos * generic ssh I have a thin wrapper around these vendor implementations which allows for threaded pushes and a couple small operational conveniences, but would appreciate any feedback https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/issues/list and testing. Please treat this as you would any *new* code -- do not consider it production quality. This project and Capirca https://code.google.com/p/capirca/ go together like beans and cornbread, if you're into that sort of thing. As noted ~4 yrs ago by Michael Shields (I think? maybe Tim Chung did the presentation at Nanog?) we use this internally, and externally (now). Having this available for management of devices is super helpful (to me). Thanks! -chris Thanks, Ryan
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for full transit. Transit is paid for bandwidth that transits through an AS to the Internet at large. I can use a paid for transit link to get to the entire Internet (hopefully). I agree that it appears that Netflix should be mostly an access or transit customer rather than a peering partner, however since high bandwidth to Netflix will make the ISPs customers happy, it is probably beneficial to come to some kind of agreement that helps you get the dedicated Netflix connection running. This is kind of the arrangement that exists with Akamai, where it is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I host their server which makes my customer happy, make Akamai's customer happy, and helps lower my costs by allowing me to minimize transit traffic. I don’t see why Netflix would be treated any different. If carriers don’t like the way Netflix servers work, then don’t put them in your network and deal with the bandwidth issues. It is a technical tradeoff whichever way you decide to go. Transit is paid for bandwidth that transits through an AS to the Internet at large. I have the right to send anything to anywhere on a transit circuit from say Comcast. Over a peering circuit, I should only be sending traffic bound for a Comcast customer or downstream provider. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
If you are a multi-homed end user and you feel that a BGP configuration for that is a big management nightmare then you probably should not be running BGP. It would take me somewhere less than 15 minutes to set this up with two carriers and unless the carrier's are at drastically different tiers, there is no need to be doing a ton of tweaking. I have run a bunch of networks like that and the workload of BGP was not even in my top 100 tasks. That awkward and primitive routing system has scaled pretty well and works well enough that there is not any widespread desire to change it. Sure we might change some things today (which we actually have over time, you know there are different BGP versions, right?), but if you can come up with a better system that is still in widespread use in 30 years, I will be impressed. Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses: If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with a large internet facing presence and usually results in at least some downtime. Due to the way DNS works (cacheing), there is no really instantaneous way to change all the addressing on your publicly facing systems without incurring some interruption. You also could have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their network whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny at all. It can also be complex announcing address space you received from one provider through another provider's network especially if those two providers change their peering arrangements between them. As a side benefit of having my own AS number, I can avoid or push traffic to certain carriers by changing my announcements. You can't do that without your own AS. Steven Naslund Chicago IL Mike: An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do. Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move. As for peering: the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; content providers at the edge do not. Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions. --Brett Glass
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
I am just guessing but you probably have not been in the service provider space. Peering in my experience has always required an ASN and BGP as a pre-requisite. That is because all service providers use BGP communities and various other mechanisms to control these connections. Sure you could do a point to point static routed circuit but do you really expect me to put in static routes for your network and then make sure I don’t announce them to the wrong places under my AS number? Oh, and I supposed I have to write ACLs for all of your netblocks to be certain that you don't use me for transit. U, nope. Our networks are far to large and complex to manually manage like that. Just try to ask a provider to do that. When he stops laughing, let me know what he says. ISPs, by the way, peer in order to minimize the amount of transit they have to purchase (almost all ISPs smaller than a tier 1 have at least some paid transit) and to direct traffic off of congested links. If a direct connection to NetFlix saves me money on transit and helps my customers that is what I will do. The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of money. That is usually done by getting the traffic directly to an efficient exit point ASAP over the least expensive transport medium. Please don’t go on and on about what might work in theory regarding interconnection, a lot of the people on here are the ones that know how things work in reality. Reality is that no one will peer with you without an AS and your own space that goes with that. If you have not reached that level of sophistication, nobody is peering with you. Steven Naslund Chicago IL On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering. It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass
RE: Net Neutrality...
Sorry to be cold about this but as high speed connectivity becomes more necessity than luxury, the market will still react. For example, I could move to the top of a mountain with no electric however most of us would not. If I was buying a home and I could not get decent high speed Internet, I would not live there because that is my business and I need it. If rural areas cannot get the kind of services they need from the carriers they have, they will have to react and break the monopoly. The economic model still works but is not as fast and efficient. There is always satellite which will all know if painful but it is an option so there is almost always not a real monopoly. Granted, if all I have to do is beat satellite, my bar is lower. You are right about becoming your own ISP. If you want to lose a lot of money in a hurry I would advise you to go to Las Vegas or become a facilities based small ISP. Steven Naslund Chicago IL There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one provider. They have a guaranteed monopoly for the next few decades. They got a huge grant to put in FTTH from the government and they still have pricing from the last decade. An 8/1 connection is $120/mo and require you to get dialtone (they say it's FCC mandated) to the tune of an additional $20/mo (that's with no long distance and every possible feature stripped). (Side-note: when the power fails during the winter, they turn off all internet access after 5 minutes so they can save battery power for the phones--which travel the exact same fiber path as the interntet). I'm not a huge fan of Comcast's recent actions, but if they rolled into the area with the same offer they have in town (100/25 for ~$75/mo), I would switch faster than you could spell monopoly. There's plenty of fiber lying within 1/4 mile from my house (runs between Seattle and Portland), but none of the companies are interested in being a local ISP, or leasing to a non-business, and I couldn't afford to start my own, let alone trenching my own fiber to other residents who are also fed up. It doesn't matter to me what the big players do because as a consumer, I still don't have a choice. So while I find my local provider's practices utterly despicable, I can't exactly speak with my wallet unless I quit being an IT guy, cancel my internet, and start raising goats or something. -A
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Matt: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. --Brett Glass At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote: While the share of revenue argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address argument: Annual Fee Max CIDR$/IP $500 /22 0.49 $1000/20 0.24 $2000/18 0.12 $4000/16 0.06 $8000/14 0.03 $16000 /12 0.02 $32000/12 Mastercard! Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume purchases.
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 15 July 2014 04:51, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) In my book (As a network operator in the UK) Netflix's proposed arrangement is peering. They have traffic they need to get onto my network. I don't want to pay transit. They don't want to pay transit. I'm happily going to connect to them for free. Why should I charge them? My (our?) customer wants the data they are sending, so I need to find some way to get it to them. This is the most cost affective, deterministic, controllable way I have. ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering. It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. They may not be an ISP in the traditional sense, ie you can't buy hosting, an access circuit etc from them, however they are a provider of a service that is accessible via the Internet. Dave
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of money. I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. --Brett Glass
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett. The reason the cost goes down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed address by address, they are managed as a single entity. ARIN has almost the same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24 or a /8. That is why there is economy of scale involved. The bigger block of course costs more because they are trying to get people to use the smallest space possible. Steven Naslund Chicago IL Matt: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. --Brett Glass
RE: Net Neutrality...
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move. Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get. Steven Naslund Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman
RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Which is their perfect right as a business. If their service starts sucking because of it, they will not be in business long. The end user will quickly figure out the Netflix sucks no matter who your Internet provider is and poof, they will be gone. Market forces at work. Steve The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of money. I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 15 July 2014 17:03, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? You would still pay for transport to your site. Or do you expect Netflix to also pay that? Together with Google for YouTube, Hulu for their share etc? It just does not work that way. I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) but none of your plans are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per stream for Super HD). I think you need to rethink a few things if you want to stay in business. I am sitting here on a 70 Mbps ADSL, Cable is often 100+ Mbps and my own ISP is selling 1000 Mbps service. Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to 40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ Regards, Baldur
Re: Net Neutrality...
Steve, I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. Perhaps you've just been lucky or your economics are different, but I can (off list) provide you with lots of locations in the US that neither of those operators, much less both, can reach. Perhaps more importantly the economics are such that one and only one tier 2 (sometimes tier 2/3) operator is available. I work with an ISP in west Texas who has been waiting on an ATT build out for nearly 14 months to be able to buy bandwidth from anyone because there is no remaining capacity on the SONET network and no other operator has any physical facilities in the area. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyLink access circuits to them regardless of location. In fact, we have never found a location in the US that I can't get both of those carrier to deliver to us. In a lot of areas there is also a cable provider available. Residential users have somewhat more limited options but you do always have the option of deciding where to live. Most of us in this group would consider the broadband options available to them before they move. Being a content provider has very little to do with market forces. Comcast is, of course, a major content provider and access provider but if they limit their customer's access to Netflix (which they have been accused of) the customers will still react to that. The content providing access provider has to know that no matter how good their content is, they are not the only source and their customers will react to that. I think the service providers are sophisticated enough to know that and they will walk the fine line of keeping their customer happy while trying to promote their own content. It is like saying a Ford dealer does not want to change the oil on your Chevy, sure they would like for you to have bought from them but they will take what they can get. Steven Naslund Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband providers are both - near-monopolies in their access areas - content providers Not a situation where market forces can work all that well. Miles Fidelman
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there were specific costs associated with administration of individual IP addresses, ARIN would have collapsed under the astronomical cost increase of receiving the allocation of 83,076,749,736,557,242,056,487,941,267,521,536 [/12] IPv6 addresses for this region...) Actual cost to administer, i.e. maintain in the database and ARIN systems, invoice each holder, provide reverse DNS, etc. is actually remarkably similar for ARIN regardless of address block size, e.g.whether it is IPv4 /8, /16, /20, /24 or an IPv6 /32 or /48. ARIN has consistently lowered ISP fees over the years (more than four times so far) but it is still worth revisiting, and there is a Fee Structure Review Report that will be forthcoming that looks at very approaches going forward. I will make sure to notify the NANOG community as well, as we want as many voices as possible in the discussion which will take place the latter half of this year. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 07/15/2014 07:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses: If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with a large internet facing presence and usually results in at least some downtime. Due to the way DNS works (cacheing), there is no really instantaneous way to change all the addressing on your publicly facing systems without incurring some interruption. You also could have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their network whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny at all. It can also be complex announcing address space you received from one provider through another provider's network especially if those two providers change their peering arrangements between them. OK, I used to work for a Web hosting company who (at the start of my tenure) did not have an ASN, and was not using BGP. Wasn't multi-homed, either. Every time they changed providers, they had to renumber. Now, this was a Linux house, very little Windows hosting, so the last time they renumbered from one upstream number space to another, I came up with a way to bridge the DNS update problem. 1) First step was to shorten the old times on DNS, about a month in advance of the changeover. 2) I had both upstreams on an overlap of two months. 3) I shifted all outgoing traffic to the new circuit, and DNS to the new numbers 4) In each of the Linux servers, I had both IP addresses configured. 5) In each box, the old address was then NATted to the new address. During the two-month transition period, my Web servers would answer to both addresses, and kept everything straight with NAT so that outgoing traffic exited the boxes using the same circuit. After two months, I took all the jerry-rigging out, and canceled the old circuit. Result: absolute minimum down-time for the Web sites, even for cable-based surfers. It was even easier when the hosting company got their own IP block and ASN. We just added the advertisements into the edge network, and did the same shuffle to our owned IP addresses. After a couple of months, we gave back the old addresses and stopped announcing them (by prearrangement with our legacy upstream, by the way.) Then we were home free and portable. Renumbering doesn't have to be a customer nightmare, if you plan carefully and use all the facilities you have at your disposal. And the earlier renumbering was done at the time that cable companies used to hold onto DNS caches FOREVER. Are those days over? I sure hope so.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/13/2014 12:54 PM, na...@brettglass.com wrote: However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate, secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to obtain usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an ISP-owned cache. Problem solved. Unless of course you've promised the content owner that you would be encrypting each delivery with a different key (because they'd been burned before by things like DVDs, which do not). Then not problem solved at all. You're also assuming that every customer is viewing the same bitrate/resolution/aspect ratio. With multi-bitrate streaming, there's often low overlap between the segments adjacent customers wish to load... even if the content is not encrypted, or is encrypted with the same DRM key for everyone. Of course, the facts of the situation don't appear to matter really... Matthew Kaufman
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring Netflix traffic to your customers. Matthew Kaufman On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote: Matt: Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers! Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny. --Brett Glass At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote: While the share of revenue argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address argument: Annual Fee Max CIDR$/IP $500 /22 0.49 $1000/20 0.24 $2000/18 0.12 $4000/16 0.06 $8000/14 0.03 $16000 /12 0.02 $32000/12 Mastercard! Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume purchases.
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote: The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of money. I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it. BTW, with the move from HTTP to HTTPS due to privacy concerns, every cache efficiency you take for granted will be lost in a few years time... Rubens
Re: Net Neutrality...
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business. Hi Steve, Barrier to entry tends to negate market forces. I dislike Verizon. Their FiOS service does not provide the technology I really want (e.g. delegated reverse DNS and a battery backup in the local vault that doesn't cut my voip via internet on power loss) and their customer support process is infuriating (It took me 5 hours of calls over 2 months to fix my login to a point where I could change the credit card used for payment.I just wanted to pay the damn bill.) And yet I buy their service. No one else is likely to bring fiber to my home and they categorically refuse to unbundle just the fiber part to any other business that might be willing to provide the service I actually want. Barrier to entry, typically in the form of sunk infrastructure, cross-subsidy and/or regulatory shenanigans, tends to fully negate the effect of other market forces. You don't have to give the customer what they want. You just have to make sure it is impractical for anyone else to sell them something better. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' peering scheme (again, I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming service that is more ISP-friendly. I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) We don't use their brand, but do mention them as an example of a company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are attempting to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, which is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the amount per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are higher. but none of your plans are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per stream for Super HD). Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves say.) Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has also failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth carefully. We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a choice of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's algorithm, a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good experience. Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed speeds. We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But Netflix doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to 40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark fiber in our area. Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our options; we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links throughout our network. Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout my entire life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our options; we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links throughout our network. Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Rubens
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Brett, You should investigate TVWS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data rate challenges. The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of unlicensed space and it goes much further than the other unlicensed bands like ISM and UNII. Technically the same amount of frequency was released for everyone, but in urban/suburban markets much more is already taken by licensed over the air TV broadcasters and wireless microphones, both as licensed users have absolute rights to the frequencies they're using. If you want to know vendors that supply the gear, since most of the BWA guys haven't grabbed it yet, let me know and I'll send what I have off list. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' peering scheme (again, I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming service that is more ISP-friendly. I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) We don't use their brand, but do mention them as an example of a company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are attempting to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, which is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the amount per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are higher. but none of your plans are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per stream for Super HD). Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves say.) Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has also failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth carefully. We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a choice of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's algorithm, a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good experience. Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed speeds. We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But Netflix doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to 40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark fiber in our area. Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our options; we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links throughout our network. Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout my entire life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links. If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, what people are pointing is that there are low-cost alternatives for low-density networks. If those exceed your requirements, you move up the food chain to better and more expensive gear, but then you have more subscribers and more revenue to pay for those. Rubens
Re: Net Neutrality...
Re: Net Neutrality In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed. For example, AOL, Prodigy, various portals, MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands. To a great extent net neutrality (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date. Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices. But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all possible throughput parameters. For example if the norm have-not bandwidth were 100mb/s but the have bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't. And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, or will be for a while. So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world. Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes around it. to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship. P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) cloud backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a spectrum spammer and hence is a bad neighbor. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. --Brett Glass
Re: Net Neutrality...
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? --Brett
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge sets. -Blake On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a spectrum spammer and hence is a bad neighbor. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, that's your call, We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a spectrum spammer and hence is a bad neighbor. Actually not, it has a better bps/Hz figure than other unlicensed radios with comparable bandwidth like 802.11ac. What you are referring to is that using the same channel for back-haul and for serving users is usually a problem, but besides some vertical and horizontal separation techniques that could be used, there is always the option of using 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz for POP-to-user communication if back-haul is needing that frequency. If reliability is more important than bandwidth, than reducing modulation to decrease data-rate but increasing reliability is an option with both AirFiber and other 802.11 unlicensed gear. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. Yes, but not mentioning the choices makes you sound like you are trying to prove a point instead of actually discussing the technical possibilities. I was in charge of engineering for a WISP for some years and still have many contacts with local WISPs, in a country(Brazil) that pretty much resembles your technical and market challenges... think you have a problem with rain fade ? US ITU-R rain zone regions seem like blue sky for us. (http://www.racom.eu/images/radost/images/hw/ray/rain_zone_h.png) Rubens
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 07/15/2014 12:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote: At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? Just off the top of my head More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. Watch a show, while downloading something else in the background. Downloading something, while uploading backups. etc. etc. This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult. You need to deal with that reality, not complain that it exists. Doug
Re: Net Neutrality...
Brett Glass writes: At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? For single-person households, nefarious things. For households (or small businesses) things change. And while most folks will not need those uplink speeds, for others it can be real useful. And yes, there is room for abuse. H
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Brett, you are missing my point. I am no expert on wireless links and the equipment I pointed at might be garbage. But you have a backhaul problem that you need to solve. If not that equipment, then something else. You are balking up the wrong tree with Netflix. People want high bandwidth video and an ISP need to be able to provide that. Caching could not solve your problem, not even close. Netflix might function at .5 Mbps but that would be their poor quality setting. People do not want that. They want the Super HD version of the video. The 6 Mbps version. And this is just now, later on they are going to want the 4k version of the video. Netflix is not a monopoly. They are just one player out of many. You can not expect someone else to solve your backhaul problem. Neither Netflix, YouTube nor Hulu are charities. They do not really care if your customers leave you to a competitor, to get the wanted bandwidth. And neither should they. You hate the fact that the world is moving to high bandwidth video. We on the other hand love it. We sell FTTH and it is a selling point for our technology over, say, wireless internet. We want Netflix to move on to even higher bandwidth streams. I can not see how you can stay in the game if you do not adapt. From everything said here it appears your main problem is that backhaul, so find a solution. The solution will not come from bashing the video services and it will not come from starting up your own service. Even if you by some miracle made a good service, people would STILL want Netflix, HBO, Hulu, YouTube and many others. Nobody can expect to get a monopoly, not even you. Caching, were it possible, is not that effective. Say it could save 50% of the traffic (unlikely) you would still be paying effectively $10 per Mbps and you would still go broke. You simply can not be paying that much for traffic in a marked, where everyone else is paying $0.5/Mbps. Regards, Baldur
Net Neutrality FCC COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION
http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty. Official comment period ends today.
Re: Net Neutrality FCC COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION
If you want to join the millions of comments, apparently the deadline has been extended to midnight, July 18th.[1] Eliot [1] http://online.wsj.com/articles/fcc-extends-comment-period-for-net-neutrality-1405449739 On 7/15/14, 10:02 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote: http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty. Official comment period ends today.
Re: Net Neutrality...
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? --Brett That is per household, not per person. And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth for a robust streaming connection. j -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Net Neutrality...
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote: Just off the top of my head More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.) This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult. Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay for. If they want more, they can always purchase it. The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following: * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose; * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings. If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer deliver. --Brett Glass
Re: Net Neutrality...
At 02:16 PM 7/15/2014, Joly MacFie wrote: And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth for a robust streaming connection. This is only true if the connection is of poor quality and dropped packets lead to regular 50% cuts in the data rate. Most users (and the FCC!) do not understand that, due to the Van Jacobson AIMD algorithm, quality matters far more than quantity when a service is delivered via TCP. --Brett Glass
Re: Net Neutrality...
Brett, You've more or less accurately described the reality of the situation. Please feel free to proceed with the dealing with it suggestion that I also made as part of the post you responded to. :) Good luck, Doug On 07/15/2014 01:42 PM, Brett Glass wrote: At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote: Just off the top of my head More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows. How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different programming, at any time? (We can do that, but it will cost more.) This is a classic example of the oversubscription problem that I and others have described on numerous previous occasions, several of which have occurred since you joined the list. Your customers are using the service they are paying you to provide in a way that makes your life more difficult. Having customers use the service I sell them does not make my life more difficult. I state very clearly what they are paying for: a certain guaranteed minimum capacity, to a certain point on the Internet backbone, with a certain maximum duty cycle. I can (and often do) take spot measurements of the amount of capacity they are using, tell them how much they are using, and verify that they are getting what they pay for. If they want more, they can always purchase it. The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following: * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose; * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings. If I quit the business, it won't be because I don't care about my customers or love what I do. It'll be because government and corporations have put so many roadblocks in my way that I can no longer deliver. --Brett Glass
Network infrastructure issue for Siebel CRM
Hi All, Anybody has idea about probable issue in Network infrastructure for siebel application performance and availability issue. What are the checks to be perform in network devices for network confirmation. Regards, Pradip Vaghela +91-9320064180
Re: Net Neutrality...
The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the following: * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then denying us the resources we need to fulfill them; * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than allowing them to choose; * Corporations exploiting market power or attempting to use the government so as to tilt the playing field in their favor; and * Corporations lying to consumers so as to get them to blame me for their own failings. Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? Rubens
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps - an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you? Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.) --Brett Glass Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: Net Neutrality...
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land). --Brett Glass
Re: Net Neutrality...
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote: Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south. What conversations have you had with them?... At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land). --Brett Glass Local fiber provider? How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in Laramie? And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem. There are a bunch. I can recommend one privately if you can't find one. Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only does not scale. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Re: Net Neutrality...
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Net Neutrality...
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support over the top VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Re: Net Neutrality...
Any ISP can tap into Erate funding. We are a WISP and lots of our school customers get Erate funding/discounts. On 7/15/2014 8:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Net Neutrality...
- Original Message - From: Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? That they understand that more than one person lives in a house. Spying on us? plonk Cheers, -- jr 'I retract the apology' a -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Net Neutrality...
Oh I agree Brett. My point was for flecher. We lost business once the government school discount happened. Its an example to what you speak ofall the time red tape overhead designed to give to LEcs business. And one of my companies is a CLEC. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support over the top VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO
Re: NANOG 62 - Baltimore - Call For Presentations is Open!
The presentation submission period for NANOG 62 is still open, although the deadline is fast approaching. It's not too late to join what's shaping up to be a great program! Thanks, Greg -- Greg Dendy Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) On Jun 16, 2014, at 9:31 PM, Greg Dendy gde...@equinix.commailto:gde...@equinix.com wrote: NANOG Community- Thanks for helping to make NANOG 61 in Bellevue such a smashing success as the most attended meeting ever, on the 20th anniversary of the first meeting! NANOG will hold its 62nd meeting in Baltimore, MD on October 6-8, 2014, hosted by EdgeConneX. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 62 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: * Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: August 4, 2014 * Topic List Posted: August 18, 2014 * Slides Due: September 1, 2014 * Agenda Published: September 15, 2014 NANOG 62 submissions are welcome on the Phttp://pc.nanog.org/rogram Committee Sitehttp://pc.nanog.org/ or email me if you have questions. Looking forward to seeing everyone in Baltimore! Thanks, Greg Dendy Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG)
VZW - fixed wireless services?
Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan
Re: VZW - fixed wireless services?
Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey r...@finnesey.com wrote: Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
RE: VZW - fixed wireless services?
Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on the offering? From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM To: Ryan Finnesey Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: VZW - fixed wireless services? Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey r...@finnesey.commailto:r...@finnesey.com wrote: Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.commailto:mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
Re: VZW - fixed wireless services?
I believe they just attach it as a regular data device on whatever data plan you pick. It's known as Verizon HomeFusion: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/homefusion/hf/main.do -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Finnesey r...@finnesey.com wrote: Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on the offering? *From:* Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM *To:* Ryan Finnesey *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: VZW - fixed wireless services? Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are. -Mike On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey r...@finnesey.com wrote: Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE. Cheers Ryan -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon -- Mike Lyon 408-621-4826 mike.l...@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
