Re: FCC Help Wanted
What value of shares in major telecommunications companies would be considered adequate for such a role? On 2 Sep 2014 09:30, Grant Ridder shortdudey...@gmail.com wrote: If you have ties to Grand Ayatollah, it would probably be an automatic acceptance into the position. Grant Sent from my iPhone On Sep 1, 2014, at 1:24 PM, Keith Medcalf kmedc...@dessus.com wrote: Of couse such applications will be accepted. However, applicants are warned that failure to include a donation will require alternate verification of the requisite lack of morals and ethics. Will applications without a cancelled check for at least 100k in donations be considered? On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/379628100 Job Title:Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet) Agency:Federal Communications Commission SALARY RANGE: $124,995.00 to $157,100.00 / Per Year DUTIES: As Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet), he/she serves as a senior expert consultant and advisor with regard to wireline and wireless broadband technologies used in communications networks, Internet technologies, Internet networking, and traffic exchange evolution issues. Provides expert technical and policy advice on the technology, design, and operations of Internet networks, including changes in network design and traffic exchange practices and policies resulting from emerging commercial practices and strategies. Performs investigative analyses and original research with respect to critical and unprecedented network operations, service provision, traffic exchange, and content delivery issues that involve emerging technologies, services, and commercial incentives; evaluates technical, social, legal, institutional and other related implications of proposed policy decisions on technology adoption, deployment, network operations, communications services provision; and provides input into Commission proceedings that implement those proposed policy decisions. Drafts recommendations, decision memoranda, notices of inquiry, notices of proposed rulemaking, orders, and public notices concerning the technical and business/financial aspects of designing, building, operating, and exchanging traffic among Internet backbone networks, and content delivery and other Internet networks. Drafts correspondence and reports concerning controversial technical aspects of pending or future issues that may warrant Commission actions, requesting additional information as necessary. Initiates correspondence responsive to inquiries from the public, other government agencies, other parts of the FCC, and Congress. Initiates communications with the public (including service providers, trade associations, and consumer groups) concerning technological, business, and operational issues of specific interest or concern to the Commission. Provides guidance and leadership over unusually complex newly emerging technical matters, including those of a precedent-setting nature. Provides expert technical and policy analysis for the Division on any issues relating to advanced communications systems, including broadband systems and the Internet, as assigned by the Division Chief or designees. Facilitates decision and action on such matters by drafting briefing material or rulemaking documents and by briefing the Division and/or Division management on policy or action alternative issues. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED: Specialized Experience: Applicants must have a minimum of one year of specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS-14 grade level in the Federal service. For this position, specialized experience includes the following: 1) Experience applying knowledge of network management and operations, network architecture, Internet technologies and services, broadband technologies, data communications, and communications network technology; 2) Experience in a variety of communications networks and systems including Internet and broadband networks; 3) Experience performing investigative analyses and original research with respect to unprecedented network operations and service provision issues that involve emerging technologies; and 4) Experience presenting complex technical and policy information to various audiences. -- --- 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: Fwd: [ PRIVACY Forum ] An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is against Sharia
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our mysterious backhoe driver. Who would've known? On 1 Sep 2014 17:37, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Cause it's a long weekend, and why shouldn't it be whackier than normal. - Forwarded Message - From: PRIVACY Forum mailing list priv...@vortex.com To: privacy-l...@vortex.com Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:34:16 PM Subject: [ PRIVACY Forum ] An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is against Sharia An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is against Sharia (Iran Human Rights): http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2014/08/makarem-internet/ A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and 3G Internet is against Sharia and against moral standards. In answer to a question published on his website, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, one of the country's highest clerical authorities, issued a fatwa, stating All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran's government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards. - - - Comcast, Verizon, ATT, Time Warner Cable, and other dominant ISPs are now in a bidding war to hire him as a consultant and board member. RUN AWAY!!! Cheers, -- jra -- 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: Urgent
Op is funny. Best to laugh and smile. On 19/08/2014 6:43 AM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote: Scott Weeks wrote: -Original Message- Contact for God, please reach out to me offlist. Regards, -AS666 NOC -- ASN 666 is the US army. I was curious a long time ago and looked it up... ;-) scott OP is a troll, best to ignore and block: Received: from sewer.dizum.com (sewer.dizum.com [194.109.206.211]) by mail.nanog.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38322D429D for nanog@nanog.org; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:00:30 + (UTC) Received: by sewer.dizum.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2A28B6087A; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 19:00:29 +0200 (CEST) Comments: This message did not originate from the Sender address above. It was remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer software. Please report problems or inappropriate use to the remailer administrator at ab...@dizum.com. -- Earthquake Magnitude: 5.7 Date: 2014-08-18 18:08:23.810 UTC Date Local: 2014-08-18 11:08:23 PDT Location: 43km ESE of Dehloran, Iran Latitude: 32.5542; Longitude: 47.698 Depth: 10 km | e-quake.org
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly and effectively. I'm a fan of either: Dark fibre to every house. Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP. All ran by an entity forbidden from retail. Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISPs (reduced labour to connect user, reduced maintenance) and dark fibre for others (reduced costs, increased control). On 5 Aug 2014 14:11, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a project whereby a 3rd party company would dig the whole city, put in some tubes in which microfibres would be installed by ISPs that reach every street number and ISP would pay per the kilometer from point A to point B (where point A was either a PoP or ISP HQ or whatever; point B is the customer). To be clear, this is single-mode dark fiber so the ISPs can run it at whatever speeds they like between two points. The only drawback is that the 3rd party company has a monopoly on the prices for the leasing of the tubes, but from my understanding this is kept under control by regulation. As long as the price is regulated at a reasonable level and is available on equal footing to all comers, that’s about as good as it will get whether run by private enterprise or by the city itself. Owen
Re: Netflix And ATT Sign Peering Agreement
Gah, While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, ATT shouldn't be charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s. Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides, when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major PoP. I'd not see them, or ISPs in other remote areas, charging for transit. On 5 Aug 2014 10:57, Marcus Reid mar...@blazingdot.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and Verizon. http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/ Am I nuts in thinking that *someone* has mispelt Netflix agrees to buy transit from ATT? As several people were kind enough to point out to me off-list, yes is the answer to that question. Thanks Jay. Can you put it in a nutshell just in case others are a little vague on the finer points of these arrangements and their significance in the current content provider / network provider row? The best thing about journalists is that they're always right (unless they're writing about something you know about, in which case they seem to always screw it up.) I like how in this case the author declares that This is the new normal. Marcus
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
This would be my humble suggestion: - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS. - lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand over to ISPs (think 96 Gbps lines to 2 10gbps ports). Perhaps upgrading so such a ratio never becomes congested could be a requirement? - lines provider also rents individual lines to ISPs which they can use directly. Rent should be lower than soft handover. This way ISPs can easily offer services. POTS over VoIP can be setup on installation of the terminal (so handover to the ISP is seamless). Finally business and residential services can also be provided over the fibre directly (this will be attractive to ISPs with many ports, to reduce costs, and premium/business ISPs to add control). - ideally the lines provider would aid in providing cheap backhaul from the co (while still allowing 3rd party users to bring fibre in). Sorry for the engrish, I'm on a mobile device :(. On 1 Aug 2014 17:43, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote: It is better, both for the customer and the provider. If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home (either on copper or fibre) with little to no uplink oversubscription (think 44x customer-facing Gig-E ports + 4x 10Gbps uplink ports), essentially, there is no limit to what services a provider and its partners can offer to its customers. Mark.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Govt controlled, please. We have tried both in NZ. Before telecom provided internet and ran lines. They were equally shit at both and apparently there were many issues for other ISPs using the lines. Now Chorus owns the and they insist that $40+/mo for wholesale DSL is fair. I think this is a sector the government would do well in. Unlike being an actual ISP there's no ambiguity (oversubscription, customer service, etc). Just provide a gigabit line with no congestion and solid uptime, or a fibre pair with solid uptime. End of story. On 1 Aug 2014 19:08, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote: This would be my humble suggestion: - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS. - lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand over to ISPs (think 96 Gbps lines to 2 10gbps ports). Perhaps upgrading so such a ratio never becomes congested could be a requirement? - lines provider also rents individual lines to ISPs which they can use directly. Rent should be lower than soft handover. This way ISPs can easily offer services. POTS over VoIP can be setup on installation of the terminal (so handover to the ISP is seamless). Finally business and residential services can also be provided over the fibre directly (this will be attractive to ISPs with many ports, to reduce costs, and premium/business ISPs to add control). - ideally the lines provider would aid in providing cheap backhaul from the co (while still allowing 3rd party users to bring fibre in). Wholesale mode. Doable. Works best if the lines provider is not a service provider; or regulation in your market ensures a service provider who is also a lines provider is mandated to unbundle at reasonable cost. Mark.
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Wait, I'm confused? Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?! Answer that with something other than because the ISPs more lucrative content business is threatened by Netflix? Stop trying to hide what this so obviously is. Others: Do you know if Netflix peers with tier 1s (level 3, cogent, etc) or purchases capacity? Bennett: Sorry for the double mail, still getting used to gmail on the Android. Jed Robertson On 28 Jul 2014 17:56, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free: http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case- for-strong-net.html Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge. This isn't the traditional understanding of net neutrality, but this is the beauty of murky notions: they can be redefined as the fashions change: You've designed your network to handle the traffic demands of web browsing? That's cute, now rebuild it to handle 40 times more traffic while I sit back and call you a crook for not anticipating my innovation. Very wow. RB On 7/27/14, 9:49 PM, Matt Palmer wrote: On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote: I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under the guise of strong net neutrality? In a word: no. Net neutrality is about everyone paying their own way to get their packets to where they want them to go. Netflix doesn't get to use the Internet for free; they pay a whole heck of a lot each month to L3 and Cogent. - Matt -- Richard Bennett Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy Editor, High Tech Forum
RE: Cable Company Network Upgrade
Instead of over subscription ratios think about what each user is doing. Let's say one 1080p Netflix stream per customer, that's 6 mbps each. Perhaps provision for that and you'll have plenty. On 20/07/2014 11:06 AM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: Thanks for sharing Ben, that's 450 kbps/sub at peak times! We see numbers in our network closer to 300 kbps per subscriber. Assuming peak usage levels of 450 kbs/sub, that would be 15.75 Gbps for Toney's customer base, and possibly more if they really have a 240 Mbps offerings. But if there are 20 locations then it's an average of 787.5 Mbps per location. If each site had a 10 Gbps interface (with 1 or 2 Gbps of transport), then the core location should peer/buy transit with at least two ISPs over four 10G interfaces. That way if one ISP/interface falls away there's still sufficient capacity. We weren't told the geographical disparity of these 20 locations, but it may be wiser for each location to peer/buy transit to two or more disparate POPs rather than home them to one core location which has more single points of failure. Frank -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ben Hatton Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:51 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Cable Company Network Upgrade I don't think there are any 'budget' routers that would move the amount of data you are looking at trying to do. 35k subs @ 240Mb is 8.4Tb/s at 100% utilization, even at a somewhat high 100:1 oversubsctiption you are looking at over 80Gb/s While our DOCSIS network is only 4000 subs, we peak at around 1.8gb/s on 10Mb packages, while oversubscription can increase with higher speed packages, as many users would never use that much bandwidth, some will, and even 1% of your customer base capping out a 240Mb would take most of a 10Gb pipe, and you still would have 34000 other subs to handle. I can't see offering 240Mb service to over 35k subs on anything less than a 100g core, and even that would be pushing it. Ben Hatton Network Engineer Haefele TV On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Chris R. Thompson chris.thomp...@solutioninc.com wrote: I think you oversubscribed... 10,000 to 1 seems a bit steep. On 07/18/2014 06:42 AM, Toney Mareo wrote: Hello, I working on a plan about improving/upgrading a Euro-DOCSIS3 based cable network with the following requirements (very briefly): -20 CMTS-es on different locations needs to be connected to the network All of these locations currently connecting to the internet through 1Gbit/s link through a single internet provider, I have to upgrade them to be able to connect to at least 2 but ideally 3 ISPs at the same time and use their links for failover (do bgp peering as well). What type of *budget* routers would you recommend to use for this purpose if cisco is not an option (the company doesn't want to buy cisco equipment)? If you can please give me exact model numbers. The company has over 35K customers at the moment which use various cable modems on different areas (docsis1-3). In the future this network has to be able to provide, max 240Mb download/30 Mb upload speed per customer. I also have to give them a proposal about what type of docsis3 cable modems should they buy in the future. And in addition they need some ABR video streaming solution. I know it's a very brief statement and I left out a lot details, so any hw suggestions are more than welcome. Have a nice day folks! -- Christopher Thompson | Client Care | SolutionInc Limited Office: +1.902.420-0077 | Fax: +1.902.420.0233 Email: chris.thomp...@solutioninc.com Website: www.solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com/ SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access SolutionInc Limited - Simplifying Internet Access With operations in more than 45 countries worldwide, SolutionInc is an established global leader in Internet, centralized hotspot connectivity, billing and management solutions. SolutionInc provides software and services to the hospitality and telecommunications industries through its award-winning, patented technology software products: SolutionIP(tm) and SolutionIP(tm) Enterprise. Through 700,000+ touch points, SolutionIP(tm) allows people to easily and securely connect to the Internet from locations such as hotel rooms, convention centres, universities, restaurants and airports. Patent Information http://www.solutioninc.com/patents/ If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately at 902 420 0077 or reply by e-mail to the sender and destroy the original communication. Thank you.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Brett, Why would Netflix pay your ISP? You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP addresses. What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power. This is the true risk. Of Netflix is also paying money to the ISP, how do we know the true cost of the connection? A big ISP can fight their way into a position where no other ISP can compete.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison. NOT CACHING with Netflix - up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a month from a major hub with a big commit? - a 10gbps port to transit provider CACHING with Netflix - up to 500w of power and 4u rack space - in a commercial DC that's a few hundred a month, most telecoms have rack space in their own office - a 10gbps port to server - the same - transit commitment in off peak hours - most telecoms have plenty of this to spare That's a pretty massive saving. I still do not understand how Netflix should pay for customers using your network. Its like charging another carrier to receive a phone call from your network, because you want to have cheaper plans. The risk is, the policy Brett suggests, will misrepresent ISP pricing. This is a huge issue. Brett? How do you think you can compete with big providers when they're subsidized by Netflix? Bare in mind they'll have much more power in negotiating with Netflix than you. Your customers will be paying for Netflix, subsidizing your competitor! Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ISP in New Zealand called slingshot that popped up on my radar. Transit in NZ appears to be expensive as hell ($20+/Mbps for bulk buys from competitive PoPs) yet this ISP, Slingshot, encourages customers to use their VPN to access Netflix. This is notable to our conversation because when any ISPs are proposing whats essentially a Netflix tax another one, who pays 20x or more for transit and cannot cache Netflix are encouraging use of Netflix. Why? Publicity. Brett, you might like a look at that because they charge $10 more than the cheapest competitor, but the proxy service they provide (which probably costs them pennies) keeps customers flowing like water for its ease of use. In a age where internet is becoming a commodity these are the types of services that can keep you afloat. Alternatively, use this debacle as advertising! I've seen many cable users complain about Netflix being very slow, could advertising that you don't throttle Netflix give you a competitive edge in cable territory??
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
One thing I've noted from those that support Verizon in this thread is that they often talk about Netflix's policy being unfair on small ISPs. Verizon is not a small ISP. Small ISPs seem happy peering with Netflix when they can (in fact they seem happy peering with anyone given there costs of transit) or getting a cache if they're big enough. My way of thinking it always has been that you are an ISP. An INTERNET service provider. As such you must make a best effort attempt to connect your customers to the internet at the speed you advertise. Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative content market.
