Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[George Herbert]

Sonic both has their own FTTH and layers on top of ATT FTTH with Fusion IPBB I 
think it’s called.  I don’t know the resale agreement details in place but it’s 
openly advertised as such on Sonic’s site.

Waiting for the true deal to land in my neighborhood ...


-George 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 1, 2020, at 8:55 PM, Matt Corallo  wrote:
> 
> 
> Their site is confusing - they were historically (and still are, in most 
> places) a DSL provider using AT for the last hop into the house. Over the 
> past few years they’ve built out their own fiber network which currently has 
> a much smaller footprint. Definitely by far the best residential internet 
> service in the Bay Area, by a mile. They sell both under similar/nearly 
> identical branding.
> 
> Matt
> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2020, at 22:03, Mark Seiden  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sonic builds their own fiber; they are insurgents. This is a good thing and 
>>> society would be better off with more competition among infrastructure 
>>> providers. It needs to be funded somehow.
>>> 
>>> You can cheat, but if you are a nonprofit doesn't that kinda go against 
>>> mission?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> according to
>> 
>> https://www.sonic.com/residential
>> 
>> for the offering 
>> 
>> “fusion IP Broadband”
>> 
>> 
>> Delivered over AT’s IP network using Fiber-to-the-Home or 
>> Fiber-to-the-Node Technology (technology based on location)
>> 
>> This service uses AT infrastructure and is installed by an AT 
>> technician, you are required to use an AT supplied modem. This will be 
>> provided during your installation. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Fletcher Kittredge
>>> GWI
>>> 207-602-1134
>>> www.gwi.net
>> 

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[Matt Corallo]

Their site is confusing - they were historically (and still are, in most 
places) a DSL provider using AT for the last hop into the house. Over the 
past few years they’ve built out their own fiber network which currently has a 
much smaller footprint. Definitely by far the best residential internet service 
in the Bay Area, by a mile. They sell both under similar/nearly identical 
branding.

Matt

> On Nov 1, 2020, at 22:03, Mark Seiden  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Nov 1, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sonic builds their own fiber; they are insurgents. This is a good thing and 
>>> society would be better off with more competition among infrastructure 
>>> providers. It needs to be funded somehow.
>>> 
>>> You can cheat, but if you are a nonprofit doesn't that kinda go against 
>>> mission?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> according to
>> 
>> https://www.sonic.com/residential
>> 
>> for the offering 
>> 
>> “fusion IP Broadband”
>> 
>> 
>> Delivered over AT’s IP network using Fiber-to-the-Home or 
>> Fiber-to-the-Node Technology (technology based on location)
>> 
>> This service uses AT infrastructure and is installed by an AT 
>> technician, you are required to use an AT supplied modem. This will be 
>> provided during your installation. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Fletcher Kittredge
>> GWI
>> 207-602-1134
>> www.gwi.net
> 

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[John Levine]

In article <098f44b7-3779-4aad-bfbe-ccaec8c3c...@seiden.com>,
Mark Seiden  wrote:
>> You can cheat, but if you are a nonprofit doesn't that kinda go against 
>> mission?
>
>well, depends what you think the mission of an arts organization or a library 
>is in these troubled times.
>
>that’s why i asked if this is cheating at any level other than that asserted 
>by some vendor’s sales people.  (i
>wtouldn’t want to violate a tariffed offering if only because
>they would have a legitimate reason to terminate service and some regulator or 
>puc decided on the equities of the pricing.)

You might want to check and see what the rules are. Here in NY,
churches and I think some other non-profits get residential rates for
phone service.

-- 
Regards,
John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[Mark Seiden]

> On Nov 1, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:
> 
> 
> Sonic builds their own fiber; they are insurgents. This is a good thing and 
> society would be better off with more competition among infrastructure 
> providers. It needs to be funded somehow.
> 
> You can cheat, but if you are a nonprofit doesn't that kinda go against 
> mission?
> 
> 

according to

https://www.sonic.com/residential

for the offering 

“fusion IP Broadband”


Delivered over AT’s IP network using Fiber-to-the-Home or Fiber-to-the-Node 
Technology (technology based on location)

This service uses AT infrastructure and is installed by an AT technician, 
you are required to use an AT supplied modem. This will be provided during 
your installation. 



> -- 
> Fletcher Kittredge
> GWI
> 207-602-1134
> www.gwi.net 

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 5:22 PM Mark Seiden  wrote:
> if i don’t want an SLA, does anything keep a non-profit organization from 
> ordering (from att or sonic) residential service at what normally would be 
> considered a business location?

Hi Mark,

Generally speaking, the residential and business services are
constructed differently. The residential service will be PON while the
business service will be a classic fiber pair. Passive optical
networking (PON) is a single-fiber that splits a number of times
between you and the company's equipment. The classic fiber pair is two
strands of fiber direct between you and the company's equipment.

Since they won't have built the PON-based service to the business
location, they won't sell it to you there. And nothing you can do will
force them to re-purpose the fiber they did build to the business
location.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[Mark Seiden]

> On Nov 1, 2020, at 5:32 PM, Fletcher Kittredge  wrote:
> 
> 
> Sonic builds their own fiber; they are insurgents. This is a good thing and 
> society would be better off with more competition among infrastructure 
> providers. It needs to be funded somehow.
> 

in san francisco, i know sonic was running their own fiber.

but i was surprised when in my suburban residential neighborhood sonic started 
advertising availability to me suspiciously close to when att started 
aggressively marketing
ftth as a substitute for ftt 

> You can cheat, but if you are a nonprofit doesn't that kinda go against 
> mission?
> 

well, depends what you think the mission of an arts organization or a library 
is in these troubled times.

that’s why i asked if this is cheating at any level other than that asserted by 
some vendor’s sales people.  (i wtouldn’t want to violate a tariffed offering 
if only because
they would have a legitimate reason to terminate service and some regulator or 
puc decided on the equities of the pricing.)

i’ve never understand the “value of service” pricing (originated by ATT when it 
was “The Bell System") when it is deliberately decoupled from the cost of 
providing service.

recall that the phone company charged more for touchtone service for decades, 
even though dialing register holding times were much lower for touchtone than
dialpulse, so their costs were in fact lower for touchtone.

Ridge Winery (started by engineers) uses tasting glasses which are designated 
“water glasses” by a famous glass maker.  the bowls of the glasses (where the 
art is)
are identical to those of their wine glasses, but the stems are an inch or so 
shorter.  the price is about half.  are they cheating?  naah.  they’re just 
smart glass hackers.



> 
> 
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 8:23 PM Mark Seiden  > wrote:
> att 1Gb/sec symmetric fiber is about $70/month.
> 
> their “business class” service costs >10x that price.
> 
> if i don’t want an SLA, does anything keep a non-profit organization from 
> ordering (from att or sonic) residential service at what normally would be 
> considered a business location?
> sonic seems to overlay on the att fiber network (in parts of the sf bay area)?
> 
> (say, for example, you have a caretaker who lives on premises and you 
> terminate the fiber in or near the caretaker’s apartment…)
> 
> (would this violate some tariff?  could they refuse to install?)
> 
> (for me this harkens back to much earlier days where i would order dry copper 
> loops intended for alarm purposes and run data or conditioned audio over 
> them…)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Fletcher Kittredge
> GWI
> 207-602-1134
> www.gwi.net 

Re: att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[Brandon Martin]

On 11/1/20 8:20 PM, Mark Seiden wrote:

(would this violate some tariff?  could they refuse to install?)


AT's fiber service is not a tariffed service anywhere that I know of. 
 They absolutely could refuse to install it at what they deem a 
"business" location and likely would.  I know Comcast will only install 
"Business Class" service at what they deem "business" locations.  I 
assume this is, in both cases, due to the substantially higher margin on 
"business" services.


As to what Sonic would do, I have no idea.  Their market model is quite 
a bit different.  I also can't imagine they're actually overlaying 
AT's fiber-to-the-prem network as, to my knowledge, AT does not 
allow 3rd party access to it in any market.

--
Brandon Martin

att or sonic "residential" fiber service at a "nontraditional" residence.

[Mark Seiden]

att 1Gb/sec symmetric fiber is about $70/month.

their “business class” service costs >10x that price.

if i don’t want an SLA, does anything keep a non-profit organization from 
ordering (from att or sonic) residential service at what normally would be 
considered a business location?
sonic seems to overlay on the att fiber network (in parts of the sf bay area)?

(say, for example, you have a caretaker who lives on premises and you terminate 
the fiber in or near the caretaker’s apartment…)

(would this violate some tariff?  could they refuse to install?)

(for me this harkens back to much earlier days where i would order dry copper 
loops intended for alarm purposes and run data or conditioned audio over them…)

Re: Apple Catalina Appears to Introduce Massive Jitter - SOLVED!

[Mark Tinka]

Thanks for the input, Karl.

Hopefully someone from Apple is around here and can get some ideas on 
how to fix this particular problem set.


Mark.

On 10/31/20 11:37, Karl Auerbach wrote:


Let me jump in and add a bit more information.

I am not an RF guy - I stopped playing with radios [and TV] in the 
days when they used vacuum tubes (yes, really.)


Many laptops share radio and antenna resources between WiFi and bluetooth.

Bluetooth lives on the 2.4ghz band.  Wifi presently uses both that 
band and also a 5ghz band. Different antennas might be used for each.


I encountered Wi-Fi/Bluetooth contention issues a couple of years back

My home wifi has (or rather had) distinct SSIDs for Wifi on the 2.4 
and 5ghz bands.  It was a rough attempt at manual load and distance 
balancing.


(Our house is in a relatively quiet area, RF wise, so there's not 
really any seriously competing wi-fi - or for that matter cell signal, 
broadcast TV, or FM radio.)


I began to notice that when I had one of my laptops on the 5ghz WiFi 
and was listening to music via some bluetooth speakers that my remote 
terminal keystrokes sometimes had that sluggish feel that is familiar 
when doing remote terminal command-line stuff over long paths with a 
lot of latency/jitter.  And at the same time the music via Bluetooth 
often broke up or stuttered.  There was a clear correlation between 
the two problems.


I had heard from some Linux kernel developers that deep down in the 
Linux kernel the simultaneous use of Wifi on a 5ghz channel and 
bluetooth on 2.4 causes a lot of thrashing and flogging of the the 
radio system.  I don't know, but I suspect that as a result there are 
queues of outbound traffic waiting for the radio or antennas to become 
operational on the channel they need.  I have no idea what happens to 
inbound frames when the radio system is tuned elsewhere - I never 
measured whether the frames are lost or delayed.


I suspect similar issues are present in *BSD, MacOS, and Windows kernels.

So I did some simple empirical testing to compare life with the laptop 
coerced to use an SSID present only on the 2.4ghz band. The problems 
went away.


I went back to the laptop, but coerced onto the 5ghz band for WiFi 
and, voila, there was trouble.


I've done this with a MacBook Pro (circa 2015 model) using various 
versions of MacOS and with my rather newer Linux laptops (mostly Dell 
XPS units with Fedora.)  Same sorts of behavior.


These were all i5 based units with 2 or 4 cores - plenty of CPU power 
to simultaneously handle an SSH remote console client and a music player.


I did not test with mobile phone or tablet platforms.

I do not know if the single radio issue is the result of cost savings 
or some radio-engineering or antenna issue.  I do suspect that these 
things could become more troublesome as WiFi 6 and/or 5G start to use 
some of the higher frequency allocations around 5.9 and 6ghz.)


(A few weeks ago we switched our home WiFi to a WiFi 6 [Netgear 
Orbi-6] mesh system that does not appear to allow separate SSIDs for 
the 2.4 and 5ghz bands, so I can not repeat these tests without 
constructing a test network with the now unused access points.  BTW, I 
did encounter the hell that is known as "reconfiguring dozens upon 
dozens of different kinds of IoT devices to use a different SSID".)


Looking somewhat off topic - it is my sense that we will be seeing a 
lot more latency/jitter (and packet resequencing) issues in the future 
as radio systems become more agile and as we begin to use shorter 
(millimeter) wavelength frequencies with reduced ability to penetrate 
walls that, in turn, cause more frequent access-point transitions 
(with possibly distinctly different backhaul characteristics).  I've 
observed that these things can cause trouble for some TCP stacks and 
some non-TCP based VoIP and streaming applications.


        --karl--

On 10/30/20 12:08 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:

Hi all.

So I may have fixed this for my end, and hopefully others may be able 
to use the same fix.


After a tip from Karl Auerbach and this link:

https://developer.apple.com/forums/thread/97805

... I was able to fix the problem by disabling Bluetooth.