Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

The RLEC infrastructure doesn't include the ROW. That belongs to the 
municipality. 

You are largely correct that you don't have access to RLEC infrastructure. 
IANAL, so I don't know the precise limitations. Many have been made to port 
their numbers, but some are still protected. 

You won't see me defending USF-funded golden toilets. 

That said, RLECs are a fairly small amount of the problem and you can always do 
fixed wireless to overcome economics in their areas. 

The biggest thing stopping a CLEC from building in the ROW is economics? That's 
generally the biggest inhibitor to any infrastructure, but it's being overcome 
all of the time. I know a lot of guys have the cost per home for FTTH well 
under $1k/home. Depending on services sold, that's a reasonable 1 - 3 year ROI. 

You don't have to be cheaper, you just have to be better. One of my clients is 
still going doing CLEC DSL for about 13 years. 


They don't mess with their customer's traffic. They have good customer support. 
We all know you can't expect them to have a superior service and compete on 
price. If you want something not shit, buy it. Don't force someone to polish a 
turd. 

There are thousands of WISPs in the US. I know because I've been one for about 
13 years, I go to the trade shows, and I have the largest WISP-focused podcast. 
I'll go tell them that they can't do what they're doing. Those urban guys are 
pretty new to the scene and represent probably less than 5% of the WISP 
industry. Some of the non-urban ones are delivering 100M+ services. Some of 
them are in the middle of nowhere, building their own infrastructure to deliver 
the only non-satellite service available. 

The biggest WISPs I know (100k+ customers) are all outside of urban areas. 
There are a ton that are 10k+. Most are probably 500 - 5k. Obviously nothing 
compared to the incumbents, but I'm not sure being like the incumbents is what 
anyone wants. 



I think the biggest thing this thread reveals is that just because someone 
operates a network doesn't mean they know how all types of networks operate (or 
are available). 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Steve Naslund" <snasl...@medline.com> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:19:54 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty 
well protected from CLEC competition. That was the original telecom act 
difference between CLECs and RLECs. Their argument was that it was so hard to 
be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to have 
exclusive access to their infrastructure. However the biggest thing stopping a 
CLEC from building in a ROW is economics. The RLEC wouldn't even be there 
without all of the government subsidies they got to build in the first place. 

I think the market has already spoken pretty resoundingly about building out 
infrastructure as a CLEC. You would have to step over all of the corpses on 
your way to doing so. In fact, I can’t off the top of my head think of a single 
CLEC that has widespread coverage over their own infrastructure. They almost 
universally use the ILEC infrastructure for last mile. Even the giants like 
Level 3 are pretty much unavailable unless you are in the heart of the NFL 
sized city. As far as rural wireless, we have found very few options in any of 
the markets we have looked into. The same density issues that prevent high 
quality cellular build outs also applies to WISPs. In the rural area the WISP 
still needs backhaul and antenna infrastructure. The lack of national scale 
WISPs tells me that model is not going to be viable at scale. Too much 
infrastructure for too few customers is the common killer of CLECs and WISPs. 
The biggest WISPs I know of are mostly urban as alternatives to the ILEC 
infrastructure not in rural areas and are used mostly as backup providers. 

Most facilities based DSL providers (i.e. equipment collocated with the ILECs) 
died quite some time ago. There were lots of them in the 1999 - 2005 timeframe 
and they are all dead now. You just can't compete with the ILEC cost model. 

I think the only model that would possibly bring out any viable competition in 
the last mile would be municipality owned infrastructure. The problem with that 
model is the municipalities love to offer exclusive contracts instead of an 
open infrastructure because they get the big payday. 

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL 


>-Original Message- 
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:43 AM 
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
>There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
>RLEC area. 
> 
>Fixed wireless is the most cost effectiv

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

It absolutely is the same issue.  Rural electrification and rural 
telecommunications are the same model, neither one happened without govt 
subsidies because the economics don't work any other way.  Same kind of 
engineering challenges when you build a large expensive distribution system for 
a very inexpensive product (kilowatts or megabits don't matter much).  The ROI 
is really difficult unless you have a captive audience.  That is why you don't 
see big CLEC build outs.  Why pay to put in a fiber cable with a 100 year 
lifecycle to a customer that might move and/or dump you in the next six months? 
 The churn will kill you.  You cannot amortize the cost of the infrastructure 
within any reasonable time frame.  Go ahead and tell a VC that your 
infrastructure has a 10 - 20 year ROI (if you are lucky) and see if you get 
laughed out of the room.  The WISPs and satellite guys are just like putting in 
windmills and solar panels to avoid the power company.  Some will do it but 
most don't like the inconvenience or complexity of it.  A fringe group at best. 
 Telecom is even worse that power because there is a very good chance that your 
infrastructure will be obsolete or devalued before it pays for itself.  Look at 
how DWDM technologies murdered the dark fiber markets and oceanic fiber links.  
Global Crossing ring a bell anyone?

In some municipalities the city owns the infrastructure now but they want that 
big payday from the award of the exclusive contract so there really is not much 
competition there.  In the "open" power market most cities find out that the 
most viable option turns out to be the incumbent power company that originally 
built out the infrastructure in the first place.  Chicago was a major failure 
of the open power market when all of the "competitors" had huge price swings 
and everyone went back to the incumbent Commonwealth Edison.  The real 
motivator was that the city really just wanted a way to get in between the 
customers and power company, they just could not resist the revenue.  Same 
thing in cable service where the city gets their share of the money for 
essentially locking out the competition.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL





>-Original Message-
>From: UpTide . [mailto:upt...@live.com] 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:55 AM
>To: Naslund, Steve
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>Sounds like the history of the electric companies.

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

  That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty 
well protected from CLEC competition.  That was the original telecom act 
difference between CLECs and RLECs.  Their argument was that it was so hard to 
be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to have 
exclusive access to their infrastructure.  However the biggest thing stopping a 
CLEC from building in a ROW is economics.  The RLEC wouldn't even be there 
without all of the government subsidies they got to build in the first place.  

I think the market has already spoken pretty resoundingly about building out 
infrastructure as a CLEC.  You would have to step over all of the corpses on 
your way to doing so.  In fact,  I can’t off the top of my head think of a 
single CLEC that has widespread coverage over their own infrastructure.  They 
almost universally use the ILEC infrastructure for last mile.  Even the giants 
like Level 3 are pretty much unavailable unless you are in the heart of the NFL 
sized city.  As far as rural wireless, we have found very few options in any of 
the markets we have looked into.  The same density issues that prevent high 
quality cellular build outs also applies to WISPs.  In the rural area the WISP 
still needs backhaul and antenna infrastructure.  The lack of national scale 
WISPs tells me that model is not going to be viable at scale.  Too much 
infrastructure for too few customers is the common killer of CLECs and WISPs.  
The biggest WISPs I know of are mostly urban as alternatives to the ILEC 
infrastructure not in rural areas and are used mostly as backup providers.

Most facilities based DSL providers (i.e. equipment collocated with the ILECs) 
died quite some time ago.  There were lots of them in the 1999 - 2005 timeframe 
and they are all dead now.  You just can't compete with the ILEC cost model.

I think the only model that would possibly bring out any viable competition in 
the last mile would be municipality owned infrastructure.  The problem with 
that model is the municipalities love to offer exclusive contracts instead of 
an open infrastructure because they get the big payday.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:43 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
>RLEC area. 
>
>Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, 
>other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what 
>WISPs have been doing for 20 years. 
>
>So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. 
>
>If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big 
>ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing 
>ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates 
>?>revenue while you build your own plant. 
>
>
>
>
>- 
>Mike Hammett 
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an 
RLEC area. 

Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, 
other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what 
WISPs have been doing for 20 years. 

So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. 

If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big 
ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing 
ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates 
revenue while you build your own plant. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Steve Naslund" <snasl...@medline.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:39:43 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't. They are protected 
monopolies by definition. You could do fixed wireless but not real cost 
effective to deploy in low density rural environments. Especially when there is 
a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the infrastructure on. 

Anyone that has been a CLEC knows that the ILEC have squeezed the CLECs out of 
the wireline space pretty effectively. It is nearly impossible to compete with 
the already amortized ILEC wireline networks and you can't do your own cable 
infrastructure without a city franchise in most areas. 

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL 

>-Original Message- 
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:28 AM 
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
>Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of 
>becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in 
>without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access 
>as the >ILEC. 
> 
>Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 
> 
>- 
>Mike Hammett 
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
>The Brothers WISP 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't.  They are protected 
monopolies by definition.  You could do fixed wireless but not real cost 
effective to deploy in low density rural environments.  Especially when there 
is a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the infrastructure on.

Anyone that has been a CLEC knows that the ILEC have squeezed the CLECs out of 
the wireline space pretty effectively.  It is nearly impossible to compete with 
the already amortized ILEC wireline networks and you can't do your own cable 
infrastructure without a city franchise in most areas.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:28 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of 
>becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in 
>without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access 
>as the >ILEC. 
>
>Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Naslund, Steve]

They may not be monopolies by definition but they act like one when there is 
only a single viable option.  In Chicago I have access to Comcast Cable (city 
franchise cable provider in this area), AT Uverse (no fiber to the home so 
its DSL), or some wireless options (line of sight is tough, and non-LOS is not 
very fast).  If I want always on > 50 mbps service it is pretty much Comcast.  
If you don't like the reliability or customer service, too bad.

At my summer home in Wisconsin we have access to CenturyLink (the protected 
RLEC) or satellite.  That's it.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
>BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside 
>from possibly Native American reservations. 
>
>
>
>
>-
>Mike Hammett
>Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>
>Midwest Internet Exchange 
>
>The Brothers WISP 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of becoming 
a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in without 
this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access as the 
ILEC. 

Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: timrutherf...@c4.net 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:25:37 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the 
municipalities sign. Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot be 
ousted without breach of contract. The towns all sign because their only other 
choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see the real 
value in. 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Edwin Pers" <ep...@ansencorp.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today. 
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality." 
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut 
> rality 
> 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[timrutherford]

The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the 
municipalities sign.  Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot 
be ousted without breach of contract.   The towns all sign because their only 
other choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see the 
real value in. 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Edwin Pers" <ep...@ansencorp.com>
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today.
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality."
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut
> rality
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from 
possibly Native American reservations. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Edwin Pers" <ep...@ansencorp.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM 
Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network 

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message - 

From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today. 
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality." 
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut 
> rality 
> 

RE: Free access to measurement network

[Edwin Pers]

Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local 
govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other 
people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access 
to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>> here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services 
>> such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are 
> limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the 
> FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 
> million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a 
> company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and 
> continues to undermine the policy today.
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited 
> competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million 
> Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million 
> Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating 
> network neutrality."
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut
> rality
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

Try looking to see what independents might be around the area you're looking 
at. See if any of them are willing to expand. Many of us are chomping at the 
bit to expand (with competitive products), but are having a hard time nailing 
people down. 

Independents are more likely to have good customer service, not want to violate 
net neutrality principals, etc. Basically, are more likely to be the company 
you actually want. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Lee" <ler...@gmail.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:46:19 PM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: 
> That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out. 
> 
> The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That 
> data is available directly on their site or via some sites like 
> broadbandnow.com 

I didn't know about that - thanks. But it just confirms what I 
thought; my choices are comcast & verizon. There is another 
possibility, but $350/mo for 10Mb/s with a 24 month contract is too 
steep. 

> There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because 
> either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff. 
> 
> My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking 
> service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up 
> shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers 
> if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs), 
> even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's 
> advertisements. 

As a consumer, how much extra are you willing to pay for good service? 
Because I'm guessing that's about all a small independent can offer 
that's better than the local (mono|duo)poly. So while I think I get 
your point, I see it more as consumers voting with their wallets 
rather than voting out independents. 

Regards, 
Lee 

> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Lee" <ler...@gmail.com> 
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:16:38 PM 
> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
> On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: 
>> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
>> supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 
> 
> As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon. 
> 
> https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez 
> Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is 
> no longer being updated. 
> 
> How do I find out what my other options are? 
> 
> Thanks, 
> Lee 
> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange 
>> 
>> The Brothers WISP 
>> 
>> - Original Message - 
>> 
>> From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua> 
>> To: nanog@nanog.org 
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
>> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
>> 
>> So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease 
>> access to the buildings for ISPs. 
>> 
>> 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>>>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone 
>>>> here 
>>>> 
>>>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP 
>>>> 
>>>> to 
>>>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
>>> 
>>> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
>>> 
>>> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited 
>>> 
>>> to a 
>>> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 
>>> 
>>> 25 
>>> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, 
>>> about 
>>> 52 
>>> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated 
>>> network 
>>> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy 
>>> 
>>> today. 
>>> 
>>> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, 
>>> the 
>>> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the 
>>> ability 
>>> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between 
>>> 
>>> two 
>>> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality." 
>>> 
>>> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Lee]

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out.
>
> The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That
> data is available directly on their site or via some sites like
> broadbandnow.com

I didn't know about that - thanks.  But it just confirms what I
thought; my choices are comcast & verizon.   There is another
possibility, but $350/mo for 10Mb/s with a 24 month contract is too
steep.

> There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because
> either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff.
>
> My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking
> service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up
> shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers
> if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs),
> even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's
> advertisements.

As a consumer, how much extra are you willing to pay for good service?
 Because I'm guessing that's about all a small independent can offer
that's better than the local (mono|duo)poly.  So while I think I get
your point, I see it more as consumers voting with their wallets
rather than voting out independents.

Regards,
Lee

>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
>
> The Brothers WISP
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Lee" <ler...@gmail.com>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:16:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
> On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
>> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be
>> supporting those options with their wallets. They don't.
>
> As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon.
>
> https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez
> Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is
> no longer being updated.
>
> How do I find out what my other options are?
>
> Thanks,
> Lee
>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>
>> The Brothers WISP
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua>
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
>> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>>
>> So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease
>> access to the buildings for ISPs.
>>
>> 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише:
>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:
>>>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone
>>>> here
>>>>
>>>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP
>>>>
>>>> to
>>>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
>>>
>>> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".
>>>
>>> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited
>>>
>>> to a
>>> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of
>>>
>>> 25
>>> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans,
>>> about
>>> 52
>>> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated
>>> network
>>> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy
>>>
>>> today.
>>>
>>> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition,
>>> the
>>> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the
>>> ability
>>> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between
>>>
>>> two
>>> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."
>>>
>>> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Free access to measurement network

[John Osmon]

> My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by
> taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have
> closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough
> getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works
> (over say 5 to 10 megs), even if the independent offers service
> comparable to the incumbent's advertisements. 

In my neck of the woods, most independents only sold layer 3 services.
and depended upon others for layer 2 services.  The independents had
a booming business with those conditions and consumers had an array of
choices for ISPs.

Then, the layer 2 operators started offering combined layer 2/3 services
at a price point below the layer 2 only price needed to get to the
independents.  Unsurprisingly, the consumers flocked to the cheaper
services.

I've always felt if a company used a public right of way to reach a
consumer, they should be prohibited from being a layer 3 provider.
Or, at a minimum, they need to sell layer 2 services to themselves at
the same price they charge others.  I've known lots of people that would
be happy to compete with the big boys under those circumstances.

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out. 

The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That data 
is available directly on their site or via some sites like broadbandnow.com 

There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because 
either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff. 

My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking 
service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up shop. 
Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers if the 
incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs), even if 
the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's advertisements. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Lee" <ler...@gmail.com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:16:38 PM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote: 
> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
> supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 

As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon. 

https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez 
Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is 
no longer being updated. 

How do I find out what my other options are? 

Thanks, 
Lee 

> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> 
> The Brothers WISP 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua> 
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 
> 
> So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease 
> access to the buildings for ISPs. 
> 
> 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here 
>>> 
>>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP 
>>> to 
>>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
>> 
>> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
>> 
>> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited 
>> to a 
>> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 
>> 25 
>> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 
>> 52 
>> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated 
>> network 
>> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy 
>> today. 
>> 
>> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, 
>> the 
>> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the 
>> ability 
>> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between 
>> two 
>> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality." 
>> 
>> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Lee]

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net> wrote:
> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be
> supporting those options with their wallets. They don't.

As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon.

https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez
 Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is
no longer being updated.

How do I find out what my other options are?

Thanks,
Lee

>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
>
> The Brothers WISP
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua>
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network
>
> So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease
> access to the buildings for ISPs.
>
> 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:
>>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here
>>>
>>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP
>>> to
>>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
>>
>> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".
>>
>> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited
>> to a
>> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of
>> 25
>> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about
>> 52
>> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated
>> network
>> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy
>> today.
>>
>> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition,
>> the
>> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the
>> ability
>> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between
>> two
>> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."
>>
>> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

I know what the report says and I'll stand by my statement. The consumers have 
voted for that with their wallets. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "David Conrad" <d...@virtualized.org> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:58:19 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

Mike, 

On Dec 16, 2017, 4:23 PM +0100, Mike Hammett <na...@ics-il.net>, wrote: 
> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
> supporting those options with their wallets. They don’t. 

The report Valdis quoted said "More than 129 million people are limited to a 
single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 
Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.” 

This suggests that consumers don’t have the option of supporting alternatives 
with their wallets. 

Regards, 
-drc 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Martin Hepworth]

You been in contact with the guys at Samknows.com ?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 at 15:09, Janusz Jezowicz 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules of
> this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.
>
> We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations
> and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as
> traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.
>
> I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc.
> for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be
> built on top of it and have capacity now.
>
> Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more
> information
>
> Thanks
>
> Janusz Jezowicz
> Speedchecker Ltd
>
-- 
-- 
Martin Hepworth, CISSP
Oxford, UK

Re: Free access to measurement network

[David Conrad]

Mike,

On Dec 16, 2017, 4:23 PM +0100, Mike Hammett , wrote:
> It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
> supporting those options with their wallets. They don’t.

The report Valdis quoted said "More than 129 million people are limited to a 
single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 
Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.”

This suggests that consumers don’t have the option of supporting alternatives 
with their wallets.

Regards,
-drc

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mike Hammett]

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be 
supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Max Tulyev" <max...@netassist.ua> 
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM 
Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network 

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease 
access to the buildings for ISPs. 

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише: 
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said: 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here 
>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to 
>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets. 
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them". 
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a 
> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 
> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 
> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network 
> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy 
> today. 
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the 
> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability 
> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two 
> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality." 
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality 
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Max Tulyev]

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease
access to the buildings for ISPs.

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu пише:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here
>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to
>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
> 
> Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".
> 
> "The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a
> single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25
> Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52
> million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network
> neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy 
> today.
> 
> In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the
> situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability
> to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two
> companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."
> 
> https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality
> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[valdis . kletnieks]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:
> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here
> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to
> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a
single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25
Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52
million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network
neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the
situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability
to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two
companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality



pgpIRNzA6s6aT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Mel Beckman]

Are these your customer-owned routers?

 -mel beckman

> On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:24 AM, Janusz Jezowicz  wrote:
> 
> Since these are mostly end-user routers they are on regular ISPs (like
> Comcast, Verizon etc). I believe this could be quite suitable for
> monitoring net neutrality. Feel free to ping me off-list if you would like
> to explore it more.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Janusz
> 
>> On 15 December 2017 at 13:47, Dovid Bender  wrote:
>> 
>> What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here
>> in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to
>> see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Janusz Jezowicz >> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules of
>>> this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.
>>> 
>>> We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations
>>> and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as
>>> traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc.
>>> for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be
>>> built on top of it and have capacity now.
>>> 
>>> Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more
>>> information
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Janusz Jezowicz
>>> Speedchecker Ltd
>> 
>> 

Re: Free access to measurement network

[james jones]

I would love access to this.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Janusz Jezowicz  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules of
> this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.
> 
> We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations
> and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as
> traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.
> 
> I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc.
> for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be
> built on top of it and have capacity now.
> 
> Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more
> information
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Janusz Jezowicz
> Speedchecker Ltd

Re: Free access to measurement network

[Christopher Morrow]

this sounds like ripe-atlas... only less nodes?
Seems interesting, you should publish an API ... oh you do:
  http://probeapi.speedchecker.xyz/

you might consider donating your data to the measurement-lab.org people ...
eh?
I wonder if/how the QOE tests could inform things like the FTC's efforts at
measuring across ATT/partner boundaries during their period
post-directtv-merger?

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Janusz Jezowicz 
wrote:

> Thanks James. Sending email off-list
>
> Janusz
>
>
> On 14 December 2017 at 16:27, james jones  wrote:
>
> > I would love access to this.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Janusz Jezowicz  >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules
> of
> > > this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.
> > >
> > > We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700
> locations
> > > and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as
> > > traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.
> > >
> > > I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge
> > (inc.
> > > for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be
> > > built on top of it and have capacity now.
> > >
> > > Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more
> > > information
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Janusz Jezowicz
> > > Speedchecker Ltd
> >
>