Net Neutrality...

[John Curran]

On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> Randy Bush wrote:
 ahhh.   so
 not government regulated == wild west
>>> lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west
>> at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet,
>> usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation.
> 
> yeah John, where are you (John and I sat a few doors from each other at one 
> point, way back)

Oh joy, a network neutrality discussion, and it's taking place 1) on nanog, 2) 
over 
the weekend, and 3) when I no longer run an ISP or a 
data-center/content-source...
It took some doing, but I was able to quell my urge to respond immediately 
(being at
the beach with family likely helped enormously... :-)

So the right answer to this entire mess would have been to provide competitive 
cost-
based access to the underlying facilities (copper, coax, fiber) including 
associated 
colocation and power services, and consider that justified given the long 
regulated 
history that made the establishment of the cable plants and rights-of-way 
possible.  
(Note - we actually had this equal-facility-access framework in the US at one 
point, 
but it was later "fixed" by a determination that effective competition could be 
provided among service providers of different technologies (e.g. FTTH, cable, 
dish) 
and that nothing more was needed.  The result was the vertical integration that 
we 
often see today - from access loop through Internet service and up to and 
including 
content in many cases.

Attempting to now address this problem (of equitable access to Internet users) 
via 
regulation of interconnection arrangements may not be very productive in the 
end; it
is a palliative measure that has potential for great complexity - similar to 
having 
every gated community in the country file paperwork describing their programs 
for 
handling of local delivery and pizza companies, and/or any fees for priority 
access
along the community roads, and all of this despite most of the community's 
insistence 
that third-party vehicles should just be allowed to pass through.

There generally should be a point of interconnection which allows for 
settlement-
free handoff of traffic to local customers; the current industry-based "peering 
model" has done a reasonable job of finding such accommodations when they can 
be 
achieved, even if it does so with only nominal outside visibility.  I understand
the desire for more consistency and public visibility into such industry 
agreements,
but would have greatly preferred efforts in that area as a prerequisite step 
(which
would allow for actual data and analysis to be introduced in the discussion) 
before 
any further measures such as per-agreement regulatory review or formalization 
of 
tiered priority mechanisms...   Alas, that sort of structured approach is not 
how 
government generally works, so we're going to go from standstill to "the 
complete 
solution" in one large leap and have to hope it works out for the best.

/John

Disclaimer: My views alone - I would appreciate not having my packets molested 
if
you should happen to disagree with them...  ;-)

net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely 
undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to 
see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to 
set an example:


Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the 
coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a 
traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount 
to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no 
more internets for them... sorry peeps.



193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

RE: Net Neutrality...

[Naslund, Steve]

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 get on board would be huge.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Miles Fidelman]

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 get on board would be huge.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL





--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Aaron C. de Bruyn]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve 
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.


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: Net Neutrality...

[manning]

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  
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 p

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Graham Donaldson]

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...

[Ray Soucy]

> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.

Well that escalated quickly.


On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Graham Donaldson  wrote:

> 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
>



-- 
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System

T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531

MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
www.maineren.net

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Graham Donaldson]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Blake Dunlap]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias

-Blake

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson
 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: Net Neutrality...

[Naslund, Steve]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Naslund, Steve]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Scott Helms]

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 AT&T 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 
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: Net Neutrality...

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve  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: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Barry Shein]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Brett Glass]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Doug Barton]

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...

[Harlan Stenn]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Joly MacFie]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass  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...

[Brett Glass]

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...

[Brett Glass]

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...

[Doug Barton]

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

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Rubens Kuhl]

>
>
> 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: Net Neutrality...

[Brett Glass]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Fletcher Kittredge]

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  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...

[Bob Evans]

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  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...

[Brett Glass]

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...

[Keefe John]

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  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...

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Brett Glass" 

> 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"?



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...

[Bob Evans]

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: Net Neutrality...

[Graham Donaldson]

On 2014-07-16 04:04, Jay Ashworth wrote:

- Original Message -

From: "Brett Glass" 



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"?



Presumably he means Internet of Things, and Snowden et. al.

Graham.

--
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”  
George Orwell, 1984

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Fletcher Kittredge]

Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural
Broadband Experiments.  I don't think this needs translation, but please
read carefully.

*2.*
We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage
participation in

the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including
competitive local exchange
carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs,
State and regional authorities,
Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49
 We were encouraged to see the
diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties.
Of the more than 1,000
expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not
currently ETCs, including electric
utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments.
*22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they
initially submit their
formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but
that they must obtain ETC
designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award.
 As stated in the Tech
Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90
days of the public notice
announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51
 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the
Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe
will be considered in default
and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural
broadband experiment. Any funding that
is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other
applicants. We conclude this is necessary
so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner.
However, a waiver of this
deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that
it has engaged in good faith to
obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day
timeframe.[52]
*23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a
presumption
that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected
participant within a specified period of
time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission
will address the ETC
application.   Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54
 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a
state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may
request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section
214(e)(6).55
 Although we are
confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance
broadband, and we expect states to
expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest
in providing voice and
broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also
recognize the need to adopt
measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in
situations where there is a lack of
action by the state.
==
 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit
their ETC applications to the relevant
jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice
announcing winning bids, and will presume an
entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15
days of release of the public notice. A
waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an
entity has an ETC application pending with
a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC
application will occur after the 90-day
window.



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Fletcher Kittredge
GWI
8 Pomerleau Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-9457
207-602-1134

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Scott Helms]

Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government
considers to be an ETC.  Keep in mind that state level boards actually make
the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so
there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in.  Having said,
that the requirements have not seemed overly onerous to us where we have
considered them, which certainly isn't all 50 states.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-46A1.pdf

"20. As described above, ETC applicants must meet statutorily prescribed
requirements before
we can approve their designation as an ETC.46 Based on the record before
us, we find that an ETC
applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide
services, including providing
service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will
remain functional in emergency
situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service
quality standards; (4) that it offers
local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an
understanding that it may be
required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated
service area relinquish their
designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.47 As noted above,
these requirements are
mandatory for all ETCs designated by the Commission. ETCs designated by the
Commission prior to
this Report and Order will be required to make such showings when they
submit their annual
certification filing on October 1, 2006. We also encourage state
commissions to apply these
requirements to all ETC applicants over which they exercise jurisdiction.
We do not believe that
different ETCs should be subject to different obligations, going forward,
because of when they
happened to first obtain ETC designation from the Commission or the state.
These are responsibilities
associated with receiving universal service support that apply to all ETCs,
regardless of the date of
initial designation."

Its also worth noting that you do _not_ have to offer voice or life line
services according the federal guidelines.

"3947 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The services that are supported by the federal
universal service support mechanisms
are: (1) voice grade access to the public switched network; (2) local
usage; (3) Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF)
signaling or its functional equivalent; (4) single-party service or its
functional equivalent; (5) access to emergency
services, including 911 and enhanced 911; (6) access to operator services;
(7) access to interexchange services; (8)
access to directory assistance; and (9) toll limitation for qualifying
low-income customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.101.
 While section 214(e)(1) requires an ETC to “offer” the services supported
by the federal universal service support
mechanisms, the Commission has determined that this does not require a
competitive carrier to actually provide the
supported services throughout the designated service area before
designation as an ETC. Federal-State Joint Board
on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption
of an Order of the South Dakota
Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15
FCC Rcd 15168, 15172-75, paras. 10-
18 (2000), recon. pending (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling)."

That was once a requirement that kept most WISPs from being able to
participate, but is no longer.  I don't personally see a large hurdle for
WISPs in the federal language and I work with 4 I know of that have ETC
status in 3 different states.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 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 
> 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
> >> c

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Miles Fidelman]

ETCs aside for a moment, the NTIA used to give out an awful lot of money 
for rural electrification, then for telecom - a lot of it going to small 
players, coops, and municipalities.  A Probably still does - though I 
haven't followed the program in recent years.  Yes, writing and selling 
a grant proposal can be tedious, but then again, so is a venture capital 
proposal, or dealing with banks.  Or, for that matter, selling to large 
customers public or private.


Miles Fidelman

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 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 

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







--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Bob Evans]

Wow, first time I ever saw this line so thanks for the text.

partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all.
Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting
documentssomething additional that is all encompassing like our equal
opportunity, filed and registered bla-blah-blah, on the government
list...and now you have to do this and this and this. Sometimes it's even
referred to on page 681...723...it often becomes a battle of words. That
cost money and demands time. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a
lawyer somethings a simple as what an IP address is.

Seen that happen before a lot !  Just saying.however, you did prove
your point that it's possible. Well done.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




> Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural
> Broadband Experiments.  I don't think this needs translation, but please
> read carefully.
>
> *2.*
> We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage
> participation in
>
> the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including
> competitive local exchange
> carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs,
> State and regional authorities,
> Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49
>  We were encouraged to see the
> diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties.
> Of the more than 1,000
> expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not
> currently ETCs, including electric
> utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments.
> *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they
> initially submit their
> formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but
> that they must obtain ETC
> designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding
> award.
>  As stated in the Tech
> Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within
> 90
> days of the public notice
> announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51
>  Any winning bidder that fails to notify the
> Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe
> will be considered in default
> and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural
> broadband experiment. Any funding that
> is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other
> applicants. We conclude this is necessary
> so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner.
> However, a waiver of this
> deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate
> that
> it has engaged in good faith to
> obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day
> timeframe.[52]
> *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt
> a
> presumption
> that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected
> participant within a specified period of
> time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission
> will address the ETC
> application.   Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54
>  We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a
> state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may
> request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section
> 214(e)(6).55
>  Although we are
> confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance
> broadband, and we expect states to
> expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest
> in providing voice and
> broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also
> recognize the need to adopt
> measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in
> situations where there is a lack of
> action by the state.
> ==
>  52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to
> submit
> their ETC applications to the relevant
> jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice
> announcing winning bids, and will presume an
> entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15
> days of release of the public notice. A
> waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an
> entity has an ETC application pending with
> a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC
> application will occur after the 90-day
> window.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass 
> wrote:
>
>> 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 telepho

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Fred Baker (fred)]

Relevant article by former FCC Chair

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

Relevant article by former FCC Chair

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/


It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on 
a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New 
York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.


YMMV, of course.
Eric

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Jason Iannone]

Barry,

Your point is well made and applies to present conditions.  I'm not
sure the current Net Neutrality debate extends so much to access,
though we should talk about that (Consumer access service policy: No
servers at home!? Asymmetric bandwidth profiles!?  What is this, the
dark ages?).  The problem as I understand exists within the realm of
the backbone and content where scale is a concern.  And your point
still applies as some explicit value for adequate can be determined,
i.e. 10 or 100g peer and transit links.  Regarding neutrality, if
public megacorp monetizes priority traffic, does that present a moral
hazard for megacorp to allow interface saturation and push more
content into priority service?  What is the high water mark for
priority services reaching best effort behavior, i.e. all traffic is
priority contending for a single queue?  Anyway, I feel like this
horse is dead.  I'd like to talk about neutrality in symmetry on
consumer access services.  I'd gladly trade my 30/5 for 15/15 with the
ability to host services for the ~$60/mo I pay today.

Jason

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein  wrote:
>
> 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: Net Neutrality...

[Doug Barton]

On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

Relevant article by former FCC Chair

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/



It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on
a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New
York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.


Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what 
did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is 
misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that 
it's a "hit piece."


Doug

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Collin Anderson]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton  wrote:

> Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what
> did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated
> or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit
> piece."
>

Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year.


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Doug Barton]

On 07/16/2014 12:24 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>> wrote:

Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece,
what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is
misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe
that it's a "hit piece."


Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year.


Ah, gotcha. :)  Thanks for that insight.

Doug

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Barry Shein]

On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 na...@brettglass.com (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?

You can do the same sort of calculation for devices. Once the screen
is updating at the screen refresh rate you are done, plus or minus
getting a faster screen but as you note that's not open-ended. At some
point you can't see faster refreshes anyhow.

etc for other human interface devices.


-- 
-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: Net Neutrality...

[Michael Hallgren]

Le 16/07/2014 17:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> Relevant article by former FCC Chair
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
>>
>
> It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue)
> on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of
> New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.
>
> YMMV, of course.

I tend to agree ;-) Now, what's the ops content of this discussion?
Might be a better choice to reroute this discussion
to a suitable ISOC forum? I don't judge, but I think the debate is of
great value, but not necessarily ``here'', but rather
``there''?---see you there? ;-)

Cheers,

mh

> Eric

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Randy Bush]

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/

In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer —
traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points,
or “off ramps,” and better quality of service.

In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened

the author neglected to say what planet he was on

randy

Re: Net Neutrality...

[joel jaeggli]

On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
> In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer —
> traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points,
> or “off ramps,” and better quality of service.
>
> In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened
If one deliberately allows a path to become congested in the direction
towards a receiver, It is the peer, not the receiving network who
discards the traffic...
> the author neglected to say what planet he was on
> randy
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Ray Soucy]

"In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened,
and nothing is broken that needs fixing."

Prefixing a statement with "in truth" doesn't actually make it true, Bob.


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred)  wrote:
> Relevant article by former FCC Chair
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/



-- 
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System

T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531

MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
www.maineren.net

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:19 , Naslund, Steve  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.

If you want more than 1Mbps downstream or more than 384k upstream over 
terrestrial facilities in most of San Jose, California (the 3rd largest city by 
population in the largest population state in the US and the 10th largest city 
in the US last I looked), then you have exactly one choice. If that's not a 
monopoly, I'm not sure how you define one.

The situation in the vast majority of the bay area (including most of silicon 
valley) is the same.

It's even worse in less densely populated areas in many cases, though USF has 
distorted that to some extent because there are rural areas where the monopoly 
facilities based carrier has taken subsidies to provide higher quality access 
than is currently available to many of us living in more urban areas.

> 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.

How is a customer supposed to react to that? In a location where their choice 
is $CABLECO for 30Mbps/7Mbps vs. $TELCO for 768k/384k, how, exactly, does one 
react in a meaningful or useful way?

Owen

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said:

> 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?

Actually, vision is higher bandwidth than that - most VR people estimate that
approaching human vision requires a gigapixel/second (at 24 bits or more per
pixel) - and even that needs to play lots of eye-tracking games to concentrate
the rendering on where the eye is focused.  Consider how fast even high-end
NVidia cards can pump out pixels and you can *still* see it's CGI.  Well-shot
4K video of real objects displayed on a good monitor is *just* reaching the "it
actually looks real" level - and that's a hell of a lot more than 4Mbps.

And remember that bits are consumed by more than just one human per dwelling -
you can have multiple people watching different things, and silicon-based
consumers burning lots of bandwidth on behalf of their carbon-based masters.
There's about a half-zillion ways a gaming console can burn bandwidth, for
example.  Heck, the Raspberry Pi under my TV can soak up more than 4Mbits/sec
just doing a software update.

/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and watch the
network providers completely lose their shit


pgpL7JfQWAopv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Michael Thomas]

On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and 
watch the network providers completely lose their shit 


http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G

$339!

I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.

Mike

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Larry Sheldon]

On 7/16/2014 1:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:

On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

Relevant article by former FCC Chair

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/




It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on
a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New
York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst.


Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what
did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is
misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that
it's a "hit piece."


His use of phrases like "by a Republican "free markets" ideologue" 
pretty much nailed the value of his remarks for me.



--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Rob Seastrom]

Michael Thomas  writes:

> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
>
> $339!
>
> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.

"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"

Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3...  2... 1...

-r

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Michael Thomas]

On 07/18/2014 11:05 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:

Michael Thomas  writes:


On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their shit

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G

$339!

I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.

"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"

Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3...  2... 1...



I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at 
all. Which is pretty much
the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content 
available that i know of.


Mike

Re: Net Neutrality...

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom  wrote:
> Michael Thomas  writes:
>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
>>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
>>
>> $339!
>>
>> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.
>
> "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
>
> Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3...  2... 1...

Hi Rob,

An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
say he used it for doing software development.

Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so
I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Brandon Butterworth]

> I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at 
> all. Which is pretty much
> the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content 
> available that i know of.

Pretty much the only thing it will ever be good for.

4K doesn't look so good at 30Hz if things move -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2013/12/high-frame-rate-at-the-ebu-uhdtv-voices-and-choices-workshop

We're working with the industry in defining the UHD standard,
120Hz is being considered though we'd prefer a bit more.

brandon

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Paul S.]

On 7/19/2014 午前 03:35, William Herrin wrote:

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom  wrote:

Michael Thomas  writes:

On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their shit

http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G

$339!

I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.

"Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"

Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3...  2... 1...

Hi Rob,

An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
say he used it for doing software development.

Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so
I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah.

I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine.

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom  wrote:
>> Michael Thomas  writes:
>>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
 /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
 watch the network providers completely lose their shit
>>> 
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
>>> 
>>> $339!
>>> 
>>> I use it for doing dev. It's *fabulous*.
>> 
>> "Refresh rate is limited to 30Hz with 4K"
>> 
>> Bracing for my first seizure ever in 3...  2... 1...
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
> doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
> why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
> which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
> say he used it for doing software development.

Well... Yes and no.

An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, that part is true.

However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular pixel in any 
LED
screen is usually controlled by a process known as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM)
where the LED actually turns on and off several thousand times per second and
modifications of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are
used to control the apparent brightness. As such, the LEDs are actually turning 
on
and off (flickering) much much faster than any CRT would, but it's not the same
kind of flicker.

However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are
LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so
I don't actually know which type it is).

This gets further complicated by technologies such as selective dimming, etc.

Owen

Re: Net Neutrality...

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin  wrote:
>> An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
>> doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
>> why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
>> which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
>> say he used it for doing software development.
>
>However, the brightness of any particular color of any particular
>pixel in any LED screen is usually controlled by a process known
>as Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) where the LED actually turns
> on and off several thousand times per second and modifications
> of the ratio between the on-time and off-time in those cycles are
>used to control the apparent brightness.
>
> However, most "LED Screens" aren't actually LED screens, most of them are
> LED backlit CRT Screens. (I didn't look at the specs on this one in detail, so
> I don't actually know which type it is).

Hi Owen,

You probably meant LED backlit LCD (liquid crystal display) screens,
yes? As opposed to an LCD panel backlit with fluorescent tubes? LCDs
don't have a flicker rate either, unless they're particularly badly
implemented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_display

Interesting point about PWM controlling the LED brightness, although
that won't be tied to screen's overall refresh rate either. The pulse
timing will be the same whether your overall refresh rate is 30 fps or
300.

(And for those of you who don't bother turning off your flat panel
monitors at night because what the heck, they won't burn in right?...
That's a mistake. You won't hurt the LCD but the cold cathode
fluorescent tube backlights are wearing out.)

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Paul S.  wrote:

>
> For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah.
>
> I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine.

This is way off topic, but 

This topic was covered back in the beginning of the year at:

  http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers

and the followup at:

  http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers-redux

The conclusion (in the case) was that for devs, the
goods outweigh the bads.  As always, your mileage
will vary, and some settling occurred during transport.

Note, too that Dell, Asus, and Lenovo have newer 4K
models out there that address some of the issues
(I have explicitly tried to avoid finding the reviews because
I do not want to be forced, forced I say, to buy
a 4K monitor).

RE: Net Neutrality...

[Keith Medcalf]

>An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
>doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
>why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
>which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
>say he used it for doing software development.

You are absolutely correct Bill, however,

>Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so
>I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.

In order to create a perception of movement, the images need to have "no image" 
between them.  24 frame progressive (such as a movie theatre from real film) is 
usually projected as 48 frames using double shutters.  It is the "blank/dark/no 
image" parts between the images that create the perception of movement in the 
brain.  For a scanning display (CRT) this is automatic -- the persistence of 
each display frame is timed such that it only persists for one half a scan 
(which is why if you take a picture of a CRT displaying an image with a camera 
with a shutter speed faster than the refresh rate, you see a rolling black 
bar).  The "blank/black" frames are created automatically.

LCD displays, however, do not have these blank frames between the actual 
frames, which is why they do not create the appearance of motion correctly.  
Most LCD display devices, however, have a refresh rate of 60 Hz (some are 
higher).  When fed with a 30p signal, the display electronics should display 
blackness for every other 60p image.  If you send a 60 Hz display a 60p signal, 
however, it will not have smooth motion.

LCD's designed to display moving pictures (ie, TVs) will run at even higher 
refresh rates (120 Hz for example) which allows a 60p display with proper 
blanking.  In some cases the motion vectors are calculated and only the "moving 
bits" are blanked (or in some cases displayed as a complement image).  Devices 
with even higher refresh rates do even more esoteric computations to determine 
the interstitial frames to create a proper perception of motion by the brain.

Each manufacturer uses their own proprietary algorithms to determine what to 
actually display -- some better some worse.  Some even use a "scanning 
backlight" which makes the LCD display "emulate" the scanning behaviour of a 
CRT display allowing for a CRT-like creation of motion.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Larry Sheldon]

On 7/20/2014 11:08 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:



An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
say he used it for doing software development.


You are absolutely correct Bill, however,


Movies were shot at 24fps and TV shows at 30fps (60 interlaced), so
I'm not sure where the harm would be there either.


In order to create a perception of movement, the images need to have "no image" between them.  24 
frame progressive (such as a movie theatre from real film) is usually projected as 48 frames using double 
shutters.  It is the "blank/dark/no image" parts between the images that create the perception of 
movement in the brain.  For a scanning display (CRT) this is automatic -- the persistence of each display 
frame is timed such that it only persists for one half a scan (which is why if you take a picture of a CRT 
displaying an image with a camera with a shutter speed faster than the refresh rate, you see a rolling black 
bar).  The "blank/black" frames are created automatically.

LCD displays, however, do not have these blank frames between the actual 
frames, which is why they do not create the appearance of motion correctly.  
Most LCD display devices, however, have a refresh rate of 60 Hz (some are 
higher).  When fed with a 30p signal, the display electronics should display 
blackness for every other 60p image.  If you send a 60 Hz display a 60p signal, 
however, it will not have smooth motion.

LCD's designed to display moving pictures (ie, TVs) will run at even higher refresh rates 
(120 Hz for example) which allows a 60p display with proper blanking.  In some cases the 
motion vectors are calculated and only the "moving bits" are blanked (or in 
some cases displayed as a complement image).  Devices with even higher refresh rates do 
even more esoteric computations to determine the interstitial frames to create a proper 
perception of motion by the brain.

Each manufacturer uses their own proprietary algorithms to determine what to actually display -- 
some better some worse.  Some even use a "scanning backlight" which makes the LCD display 
"emulate" the scanning behaviour of a CRT display allowing for a CRT-like creation of 
motion.

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming


Like TV--time for a potty break.

Really interesting read--lotta stuff I didn't know.  It is a good day.


--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Richard Bennett]

Minor nit: McDowell is a former two term commissioner, but was not a 
chairman. He is, however, a real standout in terms of understanding the 
Internet and has many of the most coherent comments of any commissioner 
since his appointment. He was a leader in the campaign to push back the 
attempts of the ITU to establish sovereignty over interconnection and to 
apply telecom tariffs to the Internet.


It's worth noting that there was a time when Internet policy at the 
national level was not the ideological exercise that it has become. 
There was very little difference between Clinton's last FCC chairman 
(Kennard) and Bush 43's first chairman (Powell) on the general approach 
of the federal government to the Internet. Powell was, after all, the 
chairman who first articulated "Internet Freedom" goals in his famous 
"Four Freedoms" speech in Boulder in 2004; see: 
http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V3I1/JTHTLv3i1_Powell.PDF


It's a shame that people can't discuss principles of network policy 
today without first signing a loyalty oath to one of the political 
parties. It seems to me that Kennard, Powell, Wheeler, McDowell, and 
current commissioner Pai have all articulated great ideas about Internet 
policy that stand on their own without regard to political affiliations.


RB

On 7/16/14, 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:

Relevant article by former FCC Chair

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/


--
Richard Bennett
Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Center for Internet, Communications, and Technology Policy
Editor, High Tech Forum

Net neutrality filing

[Stephen Satchell]

> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10616167661646/satchell.answers2questions.NPRM.17-108.pdf

Warning:  this is 63 pages long, and dull as dishwater.

It does have a few color pictures, though.  And one comic strip.

Summary: fix the statutes (thank you Sen. Stevens, for the junk!) and
apply Title II only to monopoly Internet access service providers.

I had sent this notice to a listserve (of which I'm a subscriber) of
telecomm policy people, and I'm getting a whole lot of pushback.  So I
thought, why should NANOG lose out on the fun?  So, instead of you
hearing about this in the sweet bye and bye, I'll get the firestorm over
with now, rather than stretching this out for three months.  (I'm on
this listserve, too.)

And if you think my ideas are bad, perhaps you will propose a better
suggestion to the FCC about the subject.

Re: net-neutrality

[Mark Smith]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:

> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely 
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months,

What is your definition of violating net-neutrality?

Is it 

(a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the
content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the
carriers' customers?

or

(b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was
designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100%
return on investment in the network capex), based on an original
assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some
applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant
rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and
impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming?



> which they seem to 
> see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to 
> set an example:
> 
> Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the 
> coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a 
> traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount 
> to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no 
> more internets for them... sorry peeps.
> 
> 
> 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
> 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
> 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
> 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
> 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
> 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
> 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
> 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
> 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
> 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET
> 
> 
> -- 
> Greetings,
> 
> Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
> =
> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
>   D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
>   BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
>   Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
> RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
> =
>  C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle
> 
> =
> 
> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> 
> 

Re: net-neutrality

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

If you announce anything worth reaching in that AS of yours .. MAYBE,
JUST MAYBE they'd care rather than yawn

84.22.96.0/19 has, for instance -  84.22.96.254  cock-is.huge.nl

If sony music etc want to engage in a size war with you, that's
entirely up to them.

Meanwhile, please leave nanog out of this.   It is your toy AS with
what looks like little or no production traffic on it, and you're free
to play with it as you like.

--srs

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see
> as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an
> example:
>
> Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the
> coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a
> traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to
> 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more
> internets for them... sorry peeps.
>
>
> 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
> 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
> 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
> 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
> 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
> 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
> 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
> 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
> 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
> 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET
>
>
> --
> Greetings,
>
> Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
> =
> Address: Koloniestrasse 34         VAT Tax ID:      DE267268209
>         D-13359                   Registration:    HRA 42834 B
>         BERLIN                    Phone:           +31/(0)87-8747479
>         Germany                   GSM:             +49/(0)152-26410799
> RIPE:    CBSK1-RIPE                e-Mail:          s...@cb3rob.net
> =
>  C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle
>
> =
>
> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>



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

Re: net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

it is:

c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in 
order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they 
refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to 
harrass their ISP or their isp's isp..


Well guess what, we don't really feel like giving them something for free 
(their traffic being relayed over our infrastructure) if they act hostile,
if they can't get the piratebay ITSELF to shut down, we can only conclude 
the piratebay has the RIGHT to internet just as much as they do, actually 
more, as the piratebay paid us, and they don't.


(so let's change the payment structure a bit and make these people pay us 
too ;)


see also the various piratebay cases, as well as the fact that universal 
music germany gmbh can't be fucked to pay for their own court fees if they 
need a court order to get us to give out an address (the poor fuckers, 
whatever happened to mtv-cribs ;)




--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Mark Smith wrote:


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:


Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
undermining net-neutrality over the past few months,


What is your definition of violating net-neutrality?

Is it

(a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the
content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the
carriers' customers?

or

(b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was
designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100%
return on investment in the network capex), based on an original
assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some
applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant
rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and
impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming?




which they seem to
see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to
set an example:

Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the
coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a
traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount
to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no
more internets for them... sorry peeps.


193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
  D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
  BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
  Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Re: net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

next up on the list: disney, paramount pictures, sony music entertainment, 
sony pictures entertainment, most of vivendi/universal group, viacom..


all of these organisations have well established themselves on the list of 
organisations not worthy to have their traffic relayed for free.


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Mark Smith wrote:


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:


Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
undermining net-neutrality over the past few months,


What is your definition of violating net-neutrality?

Is it

(a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the
content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the
carriers' customers?

or

(b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was
designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100%
return on investment in the network capex), based on an original
assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some
applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant
rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and
impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming?




which they seem to
see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to
set an example:

Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the
coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a
traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount
to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no
more internets for them... sorry peeps.


193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
  D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
  BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
  Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Re: net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in 
the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites 
in the entire world, until a few months ago.


not to mention several of our other clients ;)

i'd suggest you do your homework properly next time :P

the MAFIAA surely did :P

--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:


If you announce anything worth reaching in that AS of yours .. MAYBE,
JUST MAYBE they'd care rather than yawn

84.22.96.0/19 has, for instance -  84.22.96.254  cock-is.huge.nl

If sony music etc want to engage in a size war with you, that's
entirely up to them.

Meanwhile, please leave nanog out of this.   It is your toy AS with
what looks like little or no production traffic on it, and you're free
to play with it as you like.

--srs

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:

Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see
as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an
example:

Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the
coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a
traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to
1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more
internets for them... sorry peeps.


193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34         VAT Tax ID:      DE267268209
        D-13359                   Registration:    HRA 42834 B
        BERLIN                    Phone:           +31/(0)87-8747479
        Germany                   GSM:             +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:    CBSK1-RIPE                e-Mail:          s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.







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

Re: net-neutrality

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
> the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in
> the entire world, until a few months ago.

no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually
exchange with those asns

Re: net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:


On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:

hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in
the entire world, until a few months ago.


no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually
exchange with those asns



just for your info, this is just the first step, we can make it severely 
more nasty for them :P.


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

Re: net-neutrality

[Sven Olaf Kamphuis]

btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3 
networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P


--
Greetings,

Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
 D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
 BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
 Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799
RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
=
 C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle

=

Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged
and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:


On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis  wrote:

hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in
the entire world, until a few months ago.


no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually
exchange with those asns

Re: net-neutrality

[Raymond Dijkxhoorn]

Hi!

btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3 
networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P


That would be rarther funny Sven, you buying IBM. Sweet dreams.

Bye,
Raymond.

Re: net-neutrality

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Not that I am speaking for anybody but myself here.  I'll killfile
this thread now

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
 wrote:
>
>> btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3
>> networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P
>
> That would be rarther funny Sven, you buying IBM. Sweet dreams.



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

Re: net-neutrality

[William Pitcock]

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:29 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it,

if you think that is a good sales point... do you actually have any
legitimate customers?

william

Re: net-neutrality

[William Pitcock]

On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:25 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> it is:
> 
> c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in 
> order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they 
> refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to 
> harrass their ISP or their isp's isp..
> 

did you stop taking your medication today?

net-neutrality has nothing to do with following the law.  if you do not
like the copyright enforcement law in the netherlands, then change the
law in the netherlands.

nanog is not your soapbox, and I for one, am tired of hearing about how
you host thepiratebay (which is, for the last few years at least, a
pretty shitty torrent tracker anyway).

so please, for the love of $deity, stop posting your crap to this list.

by the way, you're still invited to provide a list of legitimate (e.g.
not warez) customers you have.  i'm pretty sure that you do not have any
though.

william

Re: net-neutrality

[Chris Fuenty]

Other clients eh?  Something tells your transit would be completely
useless on days where new microsoft/adobe/protools/games gets released.

Just saying.

c

On 8/11/2010 6:29 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain
> in the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted
> websites in the entire world, until a few months ago.
> 
> not to mention several of our other clients ;)
> 
> i'd suggest you do your homework properly next time :P
> 
> the MAFIAA surely did :P
> 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: net-neutrality

[Nathan Eisenberg]

> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see
> as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an
> example:
> 
> Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the
> coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a
> traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1
> euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more 
> internets
> for them... sorry peeps.

Just so I understand correctly, you're implementing what is tantamount to a 
'violation of net neutrality' in order to punish these organizations for 
attempting to protect their intellectual property?

You seem to value the neutral natural state of the internet at large.  If 
you're upset by the way these businesses have conducted themselves, find a 
response which doesn't violate your own ethics.  Otherwise, you look like a 
hypocrite throwing a tantrum.

Best Regards,
Nathan Eisenberg

RE: net-neutrality

[Jeff Harper]

This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
radio station anymore.  

> -Original Message-
> From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@cb3rob.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:53 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Cc: akt...@lists.piratenpartei.de; algem...@lists.piratenpartij.nl
> Subject: net-neutrality
> 
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem
to
> see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided
to
> set an example:
> 
> Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over
> the
> coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain
> a
> traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount
> to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's
simply
> no
> more internets for them... sorry peeps.
> 
> 
> 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET
> 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC
> 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS
> 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV
> 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2
> 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA
> 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA
> 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA
> 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613
> 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET
> 
> 
> --
> Greetings,
> 
> Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
>
===
> ==
> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:  DE267268209
>   D-13359   Registration:HRA 42834 B
>   BERLINPhone:   +31/(0)87-8747479
>   Germany   GSM: +49/(0)152-
> 26410799
> RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail:  s...@cb3rob.net
>
===
> ==
>  C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle
> 
>
===
> ==
> 
> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this
> email message, including all attached documents or files, is
privileged
> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or
> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
> 

Re: net-neutrality

[JC Dill]

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:23:01 CDT, Jeff Harper said:
  

This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
radio station anymore.



"And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know
somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if
your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk
into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.".  And walk out.  You know, if one
person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't
take him.  And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think
they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do
it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's
Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization.  And can you,
can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin
a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.  And friends they may thinks it's
a movement."

Of course, that *does* require finding 49 other like-minded people.

  

You may find these variations even more apt for this discussion:

http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices-nntp.shtml


I went over to the Commissar, said "Commissar, you got a lotta damn
gall to ask me if I've rehabilitated myself, I mean, I mean, I'm just
sittin' here, sittin' on the group H bench 'cause you want to know if
I'm *moral* enough to join a Company to grep mail, burn electronic books,
and censor feeds after bein' an NNTP hacker."  He looked at me, said
"Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your .newsrc down
to California..."

And friends, somewhere in California, enshrined in some little directory,
is a study in ones and zeroes of my .newsrc.  And the only reason I'm
singin' you this song is 'cause you may know somebody in a similar
situation, or *YOU* may be in a similar situation, and if you're in a
situation like that, there's only one thing you can do and that's post
a message to your company's internal newsgroup, saying "Commissar, you
can get anything you want on Alice's NNTP server."

And log off.

You know, if one person, just one person does it, they may think he's
really sick and won't fire him just yet, just send him down to a Training
Session until his brains are jellied up.  And if two people, two people
do it, in harmony, they may think they're starting a cascade and will only
fire one of 'em to establish a precedent and put the fear-o-God in the 
rest

of their workers.  And three people, three, can you imagine, three people
logging on, posting a message containing a bar of Alice's NNTP Server and
walking out, they may think it's an organization.  And can you imagine
fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day logging on, postin' a bar
of "Alice's NNTP Server" and logging off.  And friends, they may think
it's a movement.

And that's what it is, the Alice's NNTP Server Anti-Censorship Movement,
and all you got to do to join is quote it the next time it comes around
on the screen.
With feelin'.



http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alice_flame.shtml


He looked at me and said, ``Kid, we don't like your kind!  We're
gonna send your subnet mask off to rs.internic.net!''  And, friends,
somewhere in Washington, enshrined on some 5.25 inch floppy disk,
is a study in ones and zeros of my brain-damaged programming style...

And the only reason I'm singin' you the song now is 'cause you may
know somebody in a similar situation. Or you may be in a similar
situation, and if you're in a situation like that, there's only
one thing you can do:

[ CHORUS ]

You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think
he's really dangerous and they won't flame him.

And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both
Perl hackers and they won't flame either of them.

And if three people do it!  Can you imagine three people loggin'
in, singin' a bar of ``Alice's Usenet Flame'' and loggin' out? They
may think it's an re-implementation of sendmail!

And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day,
loggin' in, singin' a bar of ``Alice's Usenet Flame'' and loggin'
out? Friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it
is: THE INTERNET GLOBAL ANTI-LOSSAGE MOVEMENT! And all you gotta
do to join is to sing it the next time it comes around on the
/var/spool/news/in.coming directory.

With feelin'.

Re: Net neutrality filing

[Jeremy Austin]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:

>
> It does have a few color pictures, though.  And one comic strip.
>

Upvote for use of 'caisson'.

There is at least one thing that Sen. Ted Stevens got right; in the fiber
era, the Internet really *is* a series of tubes.

I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
(parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
municipal boundaries qua boundaries. At least it seems to me that you are
wanting to encourage rural development, given that the current broadband
'divide' is largely a rural vs. urban one, according to the 2016 Broadband
Progress Report.

Natural monopolies worked for electrification. Do you anticipate Title I
providers as being sufficient to the task of narrowing this divide, with or
without a federal incentives program? Historically, federal incentives have
largely gone to Title II providers or their affiliated ISPs, if I
understand the math correctly.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/

Jeremy Austin

Re: Net neutrality filing

[Stephen Satchell]

On 06/17/2017 02:10 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
> I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
> (parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
> keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
> municipal boundaries qua boundaries. At least it seems to me that you are
> wanting to encourage rural development, given that the current broadband
> 'divide' is largely a rural vs. urban one, according to the 2016 Broadband
> Progress Report.

If you have a better idea regarding how to differentiate rural monopoly
broadband providers to urban monopoly providers, please submit a comment
to the FCC about your ideas of the right way to differentiate them.

> Natural monopolies worked for electrification. Do you anticipate Title I
> providers as being sufficient to the task of narrowing this divide, with or
> without a federal incentives program? Historically, federal incentives have
> largely gone to Title II providers or their affiliated ISPs, if I
> understand the math correctly.

Title I providers did an excellent job back in the early days of the
Internet providing service in virtually every area, including rural
locations.  Let me explain.

I was on the Telecommunications Industry Associations' Transmitter Group
30 (TR30) by invitation of members, because I was publishing modem
reviews in places like Byte and MacWorld magazines.  The membership
invited me to learn how to do it "right" to better serve the readership.

(By the way, TIA TR30 used to be known as the "Modem Working Group".
See the references to 47 CFR 68.)

What was interesting is that the model "loops" (telephone circuits)
included wire simulation for calls between  rural locations to town
upramps to the 'Net.  When I incorporated the recommended loop models in
my testing, I was able to show what modems would be good for the
outliers to use.  In that sense, that was the industry's way of trying
to serve everyone, not just the "townies".

The only Title II involvement was over the PSTN circuits themselves.

Now, I can't talk to federal incentives.  I can understand why, though
-- the large providers have enough lawyers to put in bids "in the proper
language" to win awards.  The small ISPs can't afford a law firm with
sixty names on the masthead.

You may want to check the FCC site to see if there is a NPRM on
subsidies on rural broadband, and comment on the questions contained in
such a document.  Or file a request for consideration -- there is a way
to do that on EFCS.

Re: RE: net-neutrality

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:23:01 CDT, Jeff Harper said:
> This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
> radio station anymore.

"And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know
somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if
your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk
into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get
anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.".  And walk out.  You know, if one
person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't
take him.  And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think
they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do
it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's
Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization.  And can you,
can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin
a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.  And friends they may thinks it's
a movement."

Of course, that *does* require finding 49 other like-minded people.



pgpkn62UNISdB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

FYI: Net Neutrality in Canada

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

This is a heads up, the CRTC (Canada's FCC) is holding a week long
hearing on net neutrality in Canada ("differential pricing" is the used).

Canada has had its "ITMP" (Internet Traffic Management Practices) policy
since 2009 which deals with unfair throttling, and now, we are arguing
on zero rating and sponsored content stuff).


It will be broadcasted at http://www.cpac.ca  (at bottom of home page
there should be a selection for the CRTC hearing). Note: you can choose
between english, french of floor (untranslated).

Days generally start at 09:00. Can end at any time.

Either @CRTCeng or @CRTChearings will be tweeting links to presentations
as each presentation begins.

hashtag: #CRTC #Diffpricing


Facebook did not wish to appear but was "invited". Last time the CRTC
did that, it was with Netflix and Google and sparks flew ("you don't
regulate us, we don't have to answer"). (It appears on Tuesday right
after me, so they should be roughly ~ 10:30 or 11:00.)

The agenda:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/Telecom/eng/HEARINGS/2016/ag31_10.htm

The original Notice of Consultation:
> http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-192.htm?_ga=1.136052530.24154879.1433393531

And the record of the consultation:
> https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-defaut.aspx?EN=2016-192&Lang=eng&_ga=1.136052530.24154879.1433393531

Note: this started with a different proceeding in September 2015 2 parts
1 filings against Vidéotron who started zero rated music on its wireless
service for music services that Vidéotron approved/selected.
> https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?lang=eng&YA=2015&S=C&PA=t&PT=pt1&PST=a#201510735

Re: Net Neutrality in Canada

[Rod Beck]

Hi Jean,


What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?


Regards,


Roderick.



From: NANOG  on behalf of Jean-Francois Mezei 

Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FYI: Net Neutrality in Canada

This is a heads up, the CRTC (Canada's FCC) is holding a week long
hearing on net neutrality in Canada ("differential pricing" is the used).

Canada has had its "ITMP" (Internet Traffic Management Practices) policy
since 2009 which deals with unfair throttling, and now, we are arguing
on zero rating and sponsored content stuff).


It will be broadcasted at http://www.cpac.ca  (at bottom of home page
[http://www.cpac.ca/wp-content/uploads/default_2016_social_seo_logo_500x230.jpg]<http://www.cpac.ca/>

CPAC - Cable Public Affairs Channel<http://www.cpac.ca/>
www.cpac.ca
CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel, is Canada's only privately-owned, 
commercial free, not for profit, bilingual television service.


there should be a selection for the CRTC hearing). Note: you can choose
between english, french of floor (untranslated).

Days generally start at 09:00. Can end at any time.

Either @CRTCeng or @CRTChearings will be tweeting links to presentations
as each presentation begins.

hashtag: #CRTC #Diffpricing


Facebook did not wish to appear but was "invited". Last time the CRTC
did that, it was with Netflix and Google and sparks flew ("you don't
regulate us, we don't have to answer"). (It appears on Tuesday right
after me, so they should be roughly ~ 10:30 or 11:00.)

The agenda:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/Telecom/eng/HEARINGS/2016/ag31_10.htm

The original Notice of Consultation:
> http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2016/2016-192.htm?_ga=1.136052530.24154879.1433393531

And the record of the consultation:
> https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-defaut.aspx?EN=2016-192&Lang=eng&_ga=1.136052530.24154879.1433393531

Note: this started with a different proceeding in September 2015 2 parts
1 filings against Vidéotron who started zero rated music on its wireless
service for music services that Vidéotron approved/selected.
> https://services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instances-proceedings/Default-Defaut.aspx?lang=eng&YA=2015&S=C&PA=t&PT=pt1&PST=a#201510735

Re: Net Neutrality in Canada

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2016-10-30 14:20, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Jean,
> 
> 
> What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?


The Telecom Act has had a clasue against undue
preference/discrimination, as well as a "cannot control content", but
both have loopholes. (27(2) , a carrier can argue a
preference/discrimination is not "undue", and for 36 (control of
content), exemptions can be granted by CRTC.

The 2009 ITMP framework was more about throttling and treating packets
differently.

In 2010, the CRTC decided to include wireless services into the ITMP
framework, treating them as ISPs.


 But since then, incumbents have begun to zero rate stuff and there were
2 challenges. In 2013 (decided in 2015), Bell Canada was challenged for
zero rating its own TV service on its own wireless service.  CRTC
decided Bell couldn't do that, but Bell went to Federal Court of Appeal,
arguing its MobileTV offering was covered under the Broadcasting Act and
not Telecom. Federal Court sided with CRTC, confirming that the content
may have been Broadcasting but it was delivered over telecom.

Despite this, Vidéotron launched Zero Rating for music in August 2015,
and instead of deciding on this the same way it did for Bell, the CRTC
decided to launch a wider public consultation on whether zero rating
should be allowed or not.

The hearing that will happen this week is a continuation of a process
which saw 2 rounds of submissions as well as 2 interrogatories and
included the record of the Vidéotron process from 2015. In a couple of
weeks we have final replies and CRTC will take 4-6 months to rule on matter.

Competition Bureau basically says that zero rating is OK unless the
contrent being zero rated is owned by the ISP's organisation. Consumer
groups state it isn't OK, and incumbents state it is OK and that there
should simply be individual challenges whenc onsumers feel one package
abuses 27(2) or 36.

As side note: Telus hires Eisenach lobbyist to write pro-incumbent
reports. He was also hired by the Trump campaign. Not sure if he will
appear this week.

Re: Net Neutrality in Canada

[Rod Beck]

Zero rating is probably pretty popular with end users and puts net neutrality 
advocates in a difficult position. It is an astute political move. The EU 
allowing zero ratings exceptions because it is popular.


- R.



From: Jean-Francois Mezei 
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 9:19 PM
To: Rod Beck; Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality in Canada

On 2016-10-30 14:20, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
>
> What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?


The Telecom Act has had a clasue against undue
preference/discrimination, as well as a "cannot control content", but
both have loopholes. (27(2) , a carrier can argue a
preference/discrimination is not "undue", and for 36 (control of
content), exemptions can be granted by CRTC.

The 2009 ITMP framework was more about throttling and treating packets
differently.

In 2010, the CRTC decided to include wireless services into the ITMP
framework, treating them as ISPs.


 But since then, incumbents have begun to zero rate stuff and there were
2 challenges. In 2013 (decided in 2015), Bell Canada was challenged for
zero rating its own TV service on its own wireless service.  CRTC
decided Bell couldn't do that, but Bell went to Federal Court of Appeal,
arguing its MobileTV offering was covered under the Broadcasting Act and
not Telecom. Federal Court sided with CRTC, confirming that the content
may have been Broadcasting but it was delivered over telecom.

Despite this, Vidéotron launched Zero Rating for music in August 2015,
and instead of deciding on this the same way it did for Bell, the CRTC
decided to launch a wider public consultation on whether zero rating
should be allowed or not.

The hearing that will happen this week is a continuation of a process
which saw 2 rounds of submissions as well as 2 interrogatories and
included the record of the Vidéotron process from 2015. In a couple of
weeks we have final replies and CRTC will take 4-6 months to rule on matter.

Competition Bureau basically says that zero rating is OK unless the
contrent being zero rated is owned by the ISP's organisation. Consumer
groups state it isn't OK, and incumbents state it is OK and that there
should simply be individual challenges whenc onsumers feel one package
abuses 27(2) or 36.

As side note: Telus hires Eisenach lobbyist to write pro-incumbent
reports. He was also hired by the Trump campaign. Not sure if he will
appear this week.

Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[Beavis]

I come across this interesting link.

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036

Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?

I only see chaos ahead specially with ipv6 coming into the scene.



-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

Disclaimer:
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Randy Bush]

good article by Stacey Higginbotham

http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/

Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Larry Sheldon]

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
--
The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:

The fact that they are infallible; and,

The fact that they learn from their mistakes.


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[Ken]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:20:17PM -0600, Beavis said:
  >I come across this interesting link.
  >
  >http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036
  >
  >Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?

Funny, tho - being succeptible to govt pressure CREATES an alt root DNS
structure. You'd think the smart thinkers in the govt woulda figured
that out. Apply pressure and it splinters. Sometimes easier to supervise
if its in one pile, no?

Also, "new DNS = whole new internet"? lol. 

/kc
-- 
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA
Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 Front 
St. W.

Re: Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[David Conrad]

On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:20 PM, Beavis wrote:
> I come across this interesting link.
> 
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036

http://domainincite.com/icann-had-no-role-in-seizing-torrent-domains/

> Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?

Ignoring the fact that ICANN wasn't involved in the takedowns, ICANN is 
incorporated in California as a 501c(3) non-profit.  As such, it is subject to 
US law, even laws that have impacts on ICANN's attempt to be an international 
organization. If folks show up at ICANN's door with a warrant or court order, 
ICANN, like any other company incorporated in the US, must abide.

In addition, ICANN performs the IANA functions under contract to the US Dept. 
of Commerce and in theory, pressure could be brought to bear on ICANN via (at 
least) threats of refusing to renew that contract.  However, to date, I'm 
unaware of Commerce applying any sort of direct pressure this way (in fact, if 
Commerce did apply pressure to ICANN to further US gov't interests and it came 
out, it would likely be quite detrimental to US Gov't efforts in places like 
the ITU).

Looking outside the US, ICANN has an advisory committee called the "Government 
Advisory Committee". ICANN, in theory, doesn't have to listen to the GAC 
(they're an "advisory" committee after all), but to paraphrase George Orwell, 
some advisory committees are more equal than others.

> I only see chaos ahead specially with ipv6 coming into the scene.

Well, yes, I expect there to be a bit of chaos, but not really related to the 
P2P DNS stuff (if coming up with a non-hierarchical replacement for the DNS was 
easy, it'd have been done ages ago): IPv4 free pool exhaustion, IPv6 
deployment, new generic TLDs, internationalized TLDs, etc... interesting times 
ahead.

Regards,
-drc

Re: Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[Beavis]

we'll if ICANN't .. maybe HECANN (*trying out humor*).

this idea of second internet doesn't make sense.
icann alone is already a handful.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Ken  wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:20:17PM -0600, Beavis said:
>  >I come across this interesting link.
>  >
>  >http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036
>  >
>  >Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?
>
> Funny, tho - being succeptible to govt pressure CREATES an alt root DNS
> structure. You'd think the smart thinkers in the govt woulda figured
> that out. Apply pressure and it splinters. Sometimes easier to supervise
> if its in one pile, no?
>
> Also, "new DNS = whole new internet"? lol.
>
> /kc
> --
> Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284 - Toronto CANADA
> Heavy Computing - Clued bandwidth, colocation and managed linux VPS @151 
> Front St. W.
>
>



-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments

Disclaimer:
http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

Re: Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[Jimmy Hess]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Beavis  wrote:
> I come across this interesting link.
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=4828&tag=nl.e036
> Is ICANN really that susceptible to govt. pressure?
> I only see chaos ahead specially with ipv6 coming into the scene.

ICANN is subject to government pressure, but not in the way suggested;
 it should
be obvious fairly quickly if the ICANN board creates new policies
requiring registrars to provide
a technical means to censor domains governments object to on request.
It is possible that ICANN could create something like a UDRP for
government censorship,
but I don't see a public draft for that yet anyways.

ICANN is not the registrar of any domains or the registrar operator of
the gTLDs,
so ICANN lacks direct operational technical capability to "turn off"
domains or implement
government censorship;  even if ICANN staff wished to do so.


Registrars  and Registrar operators may be subject to government pressure,
in the form of law enforcement requests or court orders that they change contact
records and DNS records for a registered domain in the database that
they are publishing
on their set of servers that have the special status of globally
recognized TLD server.

Just in the same way a court could issue an order to a RBL service to
add  (or remove)
IP addresses from their  community-recognized blacklist, against an
RBL operator's will.

For most gTLD domains, the registrar would be the weakest link in the chain.

Many registrars have a clause in the registration agreement that
states something such as
"You agree that we may, in our sole discretion, delete or transfer
your domain name at any time."
So the registrar  not only could be pressured;  many already opened
the gate for them to respond
in the manner they like.

In the current state of affairs; Network operators concerned about
governmental interference with respect to their domains,
should register multiple domains under different TLDs  with  registrar
and registry operator in different jurisdictions.

Or understand that (yes);  DNS   can be effected by governments.
particularly content is offensive to the local government and might be
subject to censorship efforts,

--
-JH

Re: Net-Neutrality or Net-Neutered?

[Joly MacFie]

Earlier this evening ISOC-NY hosted a talk "Nations and Networks" by
Milton Mueller
http://www.livestream.com/isocny/video?clipId=pla_3df8a3b8-e2ee-489d-82d2-d5fb7fc432ef

At one point, he said that he'd had conversations with government
insiders about their cracking of the whip on ICANN on matters like
.xxx etc. Their response had been that the USA's main worry is that,
unless they compromise with other governments on dns issues, the rest
of the world may decide to jettison the USA root altogether..  of
course, any messing with DNS smacks of hypocrisy after Hillary's rant
about freedom and openness in the wake of the Google-China frisson a
little while back.. I guess the argument would be that the freedom
only applies to "legal" sites.. she also suggested in the same speech
that anonymity was maybe a luxury that couldn't be afforded in a
responsible internet..
http://themorningsidepost.com/2010/01/live-from-dc-21st-century-statecraft/

However it seems increasingly difficult to find a government that
doesn't favor its sovereign right to maintain some kind of national
blacklist, whether based on dns or ip. To illustrate the occasional
foot in bucket effect of the latter he quoted the example of the
virgin killer wikimedia incident
http://www.dcs.warwick.ac.uk/~rlmw/iwf/Virgin_Killer.html  - as noted
there the proxy-based blocking system employed had the effect of
rendering the entire UK unable to edit wikipedia.

The Internet Society has issued a statement criticizing technical
efforts to suppress Wikileaks:
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1597

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
---

new net neutrality/title ii mailing list

[Dave Taht]

Since network neutrality and title ii regulation is back in the news,
and the issues
so fraught with technical and political mis-conceptions, I have
started a new mailing list to discuss it, and try (for once) to feed
back valid techical feedback into the FCC´s normal processes. I kind
of expect some EU-derived regulatory ideas to emerge, in particular.

Sign up here: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

The FCC chair has put out the following statement, and is circulating
a proposed NPRM to be released Oct 19th.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf

...

There is another FCC effort on a cybersecurity label due october 6th,
which amazingly, a FCC commissioner had reached out to hackernews on,
and got back loads of wonderful feedback.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37392676

-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Ren Provo]

Even better by Verizon -
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute

Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
she attended NANOG in Orlando -
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> good article by Stacey Higginbotham
>
> http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/
>

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Randy Bush]

> Even better by Verizon -
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute
> 
> Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
> she attended NANOG in Orlando -
> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html
>>
>> http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/

as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.

randy

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Blake Dunlap]

Or alternately:

Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film
at 11.

It's all in the application of the angular momentum...

-Blake


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > Even better by Verizon -
> >
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute
> >
> > Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
> > she attended NANOG in Orlando -
> >
> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836504578553170167992666-lMyQjAxMTAzMDEwOTExNDkyWj.html
> >>
> >>
> http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/
>
> as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.
>
> randy
>
>

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Leo Bicknell]

On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.

I agree with Randy, but will go one further.

Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes 
your competitors to compete in your home market.

You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements?  You go into the 
eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one.

Google Fiber, anyone?

Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the 
products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys 
use ratio.

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







signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Blake Dunlap  wrote:
> Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film
> at 11.

The phrase you're looking for is, "double billing." Same byte, two payers.

-Bill


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

[Dorian Kim]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> > eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> > of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.
> 
> I agree with Randy, but will go one further.
> 
> Requiring a balanced ratio is extremely bad business because it incentivizes 
> your competitors to compete in your home market.
> 
> You're a content provider who can't meet ratio requirements?  You go into the 
> eyeball space, perhaps by purchasing an eyeball provider, or creating one.
> 
> Google Fiber, anyone?
> 
> Having a requirement that's basically "you must compete with me on all the 
> products I sell" is a really dumb peering policy, but that's how the big guys 
> use ratio.

At the end of the day though, this comes down to a clash of business models and 
the
reason why it's a public spectacle, and of public policy interest is due to the 
wide spread legacy of monopoly driven public investment in the last mile 
infrastructure. 

-dorian