Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Pete Carah]

On 07/18/2014 10:43 PM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Owen DeLong" 
>>> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
>>> central control (one brain).
>> Nope; not really.  Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes
>> *wide* use of distributed processing.
>>
> Yes.
>
>>> Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.
>> All of them, then, I guess.
>>
> This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop
> dividing.
Also look at the immune "system"; there is no central control at all,
and precious little central "advice" (pituitary and adrenal, and a few
others).  (yes, some disciplines related to meditation can affect the
adrenal part of that somewhat...)  Most of the immune system is cells at
war with each other, and only kept in check with a major many-way
balancing act (and you thought BGP was complicated!!).  (and there are
*plenty* of diseases that are expressions of imbalances of that war, or
(mostly external) agents that induce what amounts to a DDOS.))  (even
the itch from a mosquito bite, or poison ivy fall in that category; at
least they are normally self-limiting.)  (and some of these DDOS-like
things can be fatal like type-1 diabetes used to be (and external
insulin is just a crutch, not a cure) (lupus and MS also, both currently
not particularly treatable; there are many others).

To get back to the Verizon thing, they are not attacking netflix as
such, the attacks are downstream on that path and the restrictions on
level3 (among others) affect my getting to my own colo servers from
fios, for example.  (added 30msec and 5-10% packet loss to the path
delay regularly at 8am every day and until last week this lasted till
mid-evening (smokeping can be very enlightening)).  Things got better
late last week; hope it will last.  Call it collateral damage, but it is
Verizon doing it very much on purpose.  And at least level3 finally
called them on it; hope that ends up with some positive effect in the
long run.

-- Pete
>

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Miles Fidelman]

Daniel Corbe wrote:

Ca By  writes:


On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:

Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.


That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
landline customers.

Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
advantage of a captive install base


Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business
units.  From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon
Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they
can.



Definitely different business units.  Verizon wireless has long been 
somewhat at arms length from the rest of Verizon - part of the reason 
that their consumer billing is such a pain.


Miles Fidelman

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

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Ca By" 

> Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:
> >
> > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
> 
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.

Verizon and Verizon Wireless share, I have been told, not much more than
a name.  The two divisions came from completely different roots.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[joel jaeggli]

On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>

http://bgp.he.net/AS6167

> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
>
> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
> advantage of a captive install base
> 
>> Sent via telepathy
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By  wrote:
>>>
>>> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
>>> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers  also
>>> suffer the same performance issue?
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jared Mauch]

On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Helms  wrote:

> Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) 
> pricing.

http://bgp.he.net/AS6167

It has more to do with the fact that until recently they were a joint venture 
of Verizon and vodafone.  That changed in February:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec25c1dc-9aed-11e3-b0d0-00144feab7de.html

- Jared

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Daniel Corbe]

Ca By  writes:

> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>
>
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
>
> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
> advantage of a captive install base
>

Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business
units.  From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon
Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they
can.  

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Scott Helms]

Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most
part) pricing.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By  wrote:

> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:
> >
> > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
> >
>
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
>
> Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
> peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
> advantage of a captive install base
>
> > Sent via telepathy
> >
> > > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> > >
> > > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> > > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers
>  also
> > > suffer the same performance issue?
>

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Ca By]

On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:
>
> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>

That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
landline customers.

Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the
peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take
advantage of a captive install base

> Sent via telepathy
>
> > On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> >
> > Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> > practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers  also
> > suffer the same performance issue?

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jared Mauch]

Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. 

Sent via telepathy

> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> 
> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers  also
> suffer the same performance issue?

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Ca By  wrote:
> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers  also
> suffer the same performance issue?

As I understand it, both Verizon and Verizon Wireless rely primarily
on Verizon Business (the old UUNet) for bandwidth and Verizon Business
has a peering capacity problem with Level 3, Cogent, and I presume
others as well.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

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

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Ca By]

Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers  also
suffer the same performance issue?

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Paul WALL]

It's not as if Brett is doing the public a service. There is Charter
Cable and CenturyLink DSL available in Laramie. He's just a wireless
provider with some crappy infrastructure that's bitter that he can't
"borrow" bandwidth from the University of Wyoming anymore, resulting
in a loss of his 100% margin on the service.

You're not a charity that's providing internet access to the poor
ignored rural folks like you claim, you're a competitive overbuilder.
You give the little boys who are deploying service where the big guys
won't a bad name.

Drive slow,
Paul

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:20 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>>
>> The problem is partly a technological one.  If you have a fiber span from 
>> east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi 
>> amplifier.
>
> Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits an 
> amplifier (or nothing and isn't broken out there).  Yes.
>
> But they quoted a price for access, and some research turned up signs other 
> people are doing big fiber out of that location, so my assumption at this 
> point is that at least one pair each direction down the fiber is terminating 
> in some router there.  Possibly a fiber level wave device but seems more 
> likely a router.
>
> Unless that assumption is not true, this comes down to "We don't want your 
> antenna on our roof*, come in via fiber like everyone else" and not having 
> met the right Layer 3 reseller yet.  It's not sounding at all like "we have 
> to break open a fiber for you and put in a router".
>
> (The rest of this indirectly aimed back at Brett, not Jared )
>
> It's not 1995.  Even little ISPs need to get aware and step their game up.  
> Treating transit or uplink like a 1995 problem IS a short road to damnation 
> now.
>
> Seriously.  The net is changing. The customers are changing, the customers 
> uses and expectations are changing.  Change with it, or step out of the way.  
> You are not an exception because you're rural. You've just got a density and 
> size lag.  That is temporary at best.  Keep up.  This is critical national 
> telecommunications infrastructure.  Modern teens have mostly never used 
> landline phones and are not OK with inadequate bandwidth at home or on the 
> road.
>
> Being in Laramie is not a shield against change.
>
>
> * probably expands to "...you aren't big enough for me to bother working with 
> my facility staff and filling out the paperwork to get an exception or lease 
> amendment or permit and let you put an antenna on our roof, sorry", but this 
> is an educated guess not informed.
>
>
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Matt Palmer]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
> On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> >>- Original Message -
> >>>From: "Owen DeLong" 
> >>>But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> >>>there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> >>
> >>"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
> >>transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an
> >>IP packet from'"
> >>
> >>-- Seth Breidbart.
> >
> >I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence
> >classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet
> >from’ is not an equivalence relation.  I will use ~ as the relation and
> >say that x ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
> >
> >In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached
> >by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall
> >or an asymmetric routing fault.  It’s also true that transitivity does
> >not hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
> >
> >Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’
> >partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
> >
> >Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest
> >subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations
> >hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
> >
> >That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
>
> When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`

We probably shouldn't talk about it in public.

- Matt
"A discrete math course, on the other hand..."

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Matthew Petach]

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Michael Conlen  wrote:

>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> >
> >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> >
> > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
> transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP
> packet from'"
> > -- Seth Breidbart.
>
> I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence
> classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’
> is not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x
> ~ y if x can be reached by an IP packet from y
>
> In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached
> by b but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or
> an asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not
> hold, a ~ b and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.
>

One might argue, however, that Seth's definition
would hold for the original, open, end-to-end
connectivity model of the internet; and that by
extension, what many people think of as being
on the internet, huddling behind their NATs and
their firewalls, is not really truly on the internet.

Yes, I realize that's a much narrower definition,
and most people would argue against it; but it
does rather elegantly frame "The Internet"
as the set of fully-connected, unshielded
IP connected hosts.



>
> Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’
> partitions the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.
>
>
Not quite; the closure *does* create an
equivalence class--it's just not the one
you were expecting it to be.  That is,
the fully-connected internet equivalence
class of Seth's definition is smaller than
what you'd like to consider "The Internet"
to be, but it is a valid equivalence class.


> Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest
> subset of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations
> hold and the relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.
>
> That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.
>

And one might argue that it's a more liberal
interpretation of "The Internet" than what Seth
had intended.

As a though exercise...imagine a botnet
owner that used encrypted payloads in ICMP
packets for the command-and-control messages
for her botnet army; no 'ack' is required, the
messages simply need to make it from the
control node to the zombies.  She pops up
a control node using unallocated, unannounced
IP space; the host sends out control messages,
never expecting to get responses, as the IP
address it's using has no corresponding route
in the global routing table.  Is that control host
part of "The Internet?"

Seth's definition makes it clear that control
host, spewing out its encrypted ICMP control
messages in a one-way stream, is *not* part
of "The Internet."  Do we concur?  Or is there
some notion of that control host still being
somehow part of "The Internet" because it's
able to send evil nasty icky packets at the
rest of the better-behaved Internet, even if
we can't respond in any way?

I find myself leaning towards Seth's definition,
and supporting the idea that even though that
host is sending a stream of IP traffic at my
network, it's not part of "The Internet"--even
though that conflicts with what my security
team would probably say ("if it can attack me
with IP datagrams, it's part of the internet.").

It's actually a deceptively tough question
to wrestle with.


> —
> Mike
>
>
Thanks!

Matt

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Paul S.]

When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`

On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:

On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:


- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong" 
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
there is no such thing as "THE Internet".

"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
-- Seth Breidbart.

I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence 
classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is 
not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if 
x can be reached by an IP packet from y

In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b 
but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an 
asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b 
and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons.

Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions 
the set of computers into equivalence classes fails.

Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset 
of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the 
relation partitions B into a single equivalence class.

That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it.

—
Mike

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Michael Conlen]

On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> 
>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> 
> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
> symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
> -- Seth Breidbart.

I happen to like this idea but since we are getting picky and equivalence 
classes are a mathematical structure 'can be reached by an IP packet from’ is 
not an equivalence relation. I will use ~ as the relation and say that x ~ y if 
x can be reached by an IP packet from y

In particular symmetry does not hold. a ~ b implies that a can be reached by b 
but it does not hold that b ~ a; either because of NAT or firewall or an 
asymmetric routing fault. It’s also true that transitivity does not hold, a ~ b 
and b ~ c does not imply that a ~ c for similar reasons. 

Therefore, the hypothesis that ‘can be reached by an IP packet from’ partitions 
the set of computers into equivalence classes fails. 

Perhaps if A is the set of computers then “The Internet” is the largest subset 
of AxA, say B subset AxA, such for (a, b) in B the three relations hold and the 
relation partitions B into a single equivalence class. 

That really doesn’t have the same ring to it though does it. 

—
Mike

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

Ah, yes... /those/ numbers.

Lyrically put, Valdis; thanks.

On July 19, 2014 6:28:26 PM EDT, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
>
>> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said.  And meant.
>
>The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's
>kidneys due to the way they overstated access.  It was done on a
>per-county
>basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was
>counted
>as accessible to *the entire population* of said county.
>
>So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got
>Comcast
>because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their
>street
>because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the
>line,
>the FCC said all 50K had access to cable.
>
>Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the
>people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are
>scratching
>their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers
>say
>everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers.
>
>I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a
>severe
>victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really
>want realistic numbers published...

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:

> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said.  And meant.

The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's
kidneys due to the way they overstated access.  It was done on a per-county
basis, and if the service was offered *anywhere* in the county, it was counted
as accessible to *the entire population* of said county.

So if there were 50,000 people in the county, and 6 households got Comcast
because they lived right on the county line and Comcast hit their street
because they were doing a buildiut in a new development just over the line,
the FCC said all 50K had access to cable.

Similary for more suurban areas, where Cox may have cable to half the
people, and Verizon has DSL to a *different* third, and 1/6 are scratching
their tookuses waiting for broadband from everybody - the FCC numbers say
everybody in the county has access to 2 competing providers.

I don't know if they got any better - I doubt it, as the FCC is a severe
victim of regulatory capture, and the regulated companies don't really
want realistic numbers published...



pgpif4kNykKcw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein" 

> On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
> >  Original Message -
> > > From: "Barry Shein" 
> >
> > > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband
> > > users
> > > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3
> > > have 3
> > > or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
> >
> > Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone
> > tethering.
> >
> > Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3.
> >
> > Could you dig that up, Barry?
> 
> http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/

Thank you.

That suggests that 90% of USAdian households have access to wired 
broadband that is 10mbps down or better, which flies pretty hard in the 
face of the last numbers I saw, which said that no better than 60% had 
even DSL available to them as presently orderable service.

I wonder what the original FCC data actually said.  And meant.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Barry Shein]

On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
 >  Original Message -
 > > From: "Barry Shein" 
 > 
 > > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
 > > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3
 > > or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
 > 
 > Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering.
 > 
 > Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3.
 > 
 > Could you dig that up, Barry?

  http://bgr.com/2014/03/14/home-internet-service-competition-lacking/

or

  http://tinyurl.com/ourl62e


-- 
-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: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitiv
e, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
> > -- Seth Breidbart.

> Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after
> "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the
> left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand 
> side.

Which is why Jay said "closure" - that means (basically) "across *all*
meaningful right hand sides, plus nay *new* ones that pop up as previously
undiscovered left hand sides along the way.

And yes, this definition *does* mean that if you find a reachable webserver
in a corporate DMZ, and that webserver can reach machines that are behind the
corporate firewall, those supposedly firewalled machines are "on the internet"
as well.

Which is what your security geek was trying to explain to you :)



pgpLuZdl0RuRx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Ca By]

On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong" 
>
> > My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
> > central control (one brain).
>
> Nope; not really.  Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes
> *wide* use of distributed processing.
>

Yes.

> > Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.
>
> All of them, then, I guess.
>

This is why most of us cannot stop cancer by willing the cells to stop
dividing.

> > There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my
> > point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no
> > particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet".
>
> I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet"
> (note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately.
>
> This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and
> taxonomy.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC
2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647
1274

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[George Herbert]

> On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
> The problem is partly a technological one.  If you have a fiber span from 
> east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi 
> amplifier.

Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits an 
amplifier (or nothing and isn't broken out there).  Yes.

But they quoted a price for access, and some research turned up signs other 
people are doing big fiber out of that location, so my assumption at this point 
is that at least one pair each direction down the fiber is terminating in some 
router there.  Possibly a fiber level wave device but seems more likely a 
router.

Unless that assumption is not true, this comes down to "We don't want your 
antenna on our roof*, come in via fiber like everyone else" and not having met 
the right Layer 3 reseller yet.  It's not sounding at all like "we have to 
break open a fiber for you and put in a router".

(The rest of this indirectly aimed back at Brett, not Jared )

It's not 1995.  Even little ISPs need to get aware and step their game up.  
Treating transit or uplink like a 1995 problem IS a short road to damnation now.

Seriously.  The net is changing. The customers are changing, the customers uses 
and expectations are changing.  Change with it, or step out of the way.  You 
are not an exception because you're rural. You've just got a density and size 
lag.  That is temporary at best.  Keep up.  This is critical national 
telecommunications infrastructure.  Modern teens have mostly never used 
landline phones and are not OK with inadequate bandwidth at home or on the road.

Being in Laramie is not a shield against change.


* probably expands to "...you aren't big enough for me to bother working with 
my facility staff and filling out the paperwork to get an exception or lease 
amendment or permit and let you put an antenna on our roof, sorry", but this is 
an educated guess not informed.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Noble" 

> I know you will see the irony in my next statement..
> 
> Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect
> to anyone to help with Netflix connectivity.
> 
> http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

It was suggested to me tonight by a cow-orker that we ought to start
a Kickstarter to buy Verizon a 10G card for their peering router with L3.

I think that's a marvelous idea, though it did take a few minutes to land.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong" 

> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
> central control (one brain).

Nope; not really.  Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes
*wide* use of distributed processing.

> Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.

All of them, then, I guess.

> There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my
> point isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no
> particular one you can point to and call it "THE internet".

I can point to any jack that is part of it, and say it's "The Internet"
(note, please, capitalization) and be describing it accurately.

This is not an issue of engineering; it's one of nomenclature and
taxonomy.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Fred Baker (fred)]

On Jul 14, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:

> I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since
> many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do
> with Internet access.

And there are a number of ISPs with multiple ASNs.

If you look up the history of the term, "Autonomous System" is used without 
definition in most of its earlier RFCs, such as 820, 827, and 1105. In short, 
though, it is a network that connects to other networks using a routing 
protocol such as EGP or eBGP. The best formal definition I have seen involves 
"a collection of physical networks under common administration which are 
reachable from the rest of the Internet by a common route." The quote is from 
RFC 1000 and refers to the domain of a prefix, but it's pretty close. An 
"Autonomous System Number" is a creature of EGP or BGP Routing, and identifies 
such a system.

If you look at http://bgp.potaroo.net/as6447/ and search for “AS numbers”, and 
you happen to be looking at exactly this instant (it changes), you’ll find that 
AS 6447 sees 47879 individual AS numbers in the Internet, of which 40339 show 
up *only* as origins (and therefore have to do with the AS a source or 
destination of traffic), 236 *never* show up as end last AS in an AS Path (and 
therefore are *always* transit), and 7304 that are sometimes origin and 
sometimes transit. To my small mind, an AS that functions as an ISP if highly 
likely to show up as a transit network, and an AS that never shows up as 
transit is very likely to be multihomed or to have justified its AS number on 
the basis of plans to multihome. Of course, one will also find that 30134 AS’s 
are origin AS’s visible through exactly one AS path, which says that at this 
instant they’re not actually multihomed.

No, AS != ISP. An AS is a network that needs to be identifiable in global 
routing but would be entirely reachable even if it had exactly one link with 
some other network.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control 
(one brain).

Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.

There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point 
isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no particular one you can 
point to and call it "THE internet".

Owen

On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:28 , William Herrin  wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when
>> you realize that there is no such thing as
>> "THE Internet".
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities
> (cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting
> ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take
> offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong."
> 
> Poor Internet can't get no respect...
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
> Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Steve Noble]

Hi Jared,

I know you will see the irony in my next statement..

Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect to
anyone to help with Netflix connectivity.

http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

The above URL is a great place to start.
On Jul 17, 2014 5:21 AM, "Jared Mauch"  wrote:

>
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert 
> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> >>
> >> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly
> south.  What conversations have you had with them?...
> >>
> >> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate
> several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth.
> Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless
> (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their
> building, which sits on rented land).
> >
> > Local fiber provider?  How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in
> Laramie?
> >
> > And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem.  There are
> a bunch.  I can recommend one privately if you can't find one.
> >
> > Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only
> does not scale.
>
> The problem is partly a technological one.  If you have a fiber span from
> east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi
> amplifier.  That OEO cost isn't "very high", but hitting every city like
> that becomes expensive quickly.  This is why your 10G from EQUINIX-SJ to
> EQUNIX-ASH costs the same as the 10G loop from the DC to your local office.
>  The cost is the OEO ends.  If you're not in a fiber rich environment you
> are screwed.  I have at&t fiber less than 1200 feet from me but they do not
> offer any non-dialtone services in my area.  I'm all-poles to the end of
> the new comcast segment as well but due to a mid-part that doesn't have the
> density required to meet their metrics there continue to be only fixed
> wireless choices here.
>
> Others have suggested the UBNT gear.  I'm using it myself, but I'll say..
> it still leaves a lot to be desired.  It's mostly meant for use in less
> developed countries.  Their latest 5Ghz access gear often takes 6-12 months
> to get FCC certified to operate in the full 5ghz band.  With the recent
> opening all the way down to 5.1 this spring with the FCC that certification
> process restarted.  They are great for hopping short distances at high
> speeds in the US, but are very susceptible to interference.  (The NanoBeam,
> now PowerBeam is a bit better).
>
> my backhaul is 3 miles and works well for my use case.  Cheaper than the
> T1 before and higher speeds.  There's a lot of people in wispa around the
> edges you can find doing things, and many others doing it that aren't in
> wispa.  Most are small businesses (Some are larger) and suffer from poor
> business choices, but the biggest problem I see is lack of ability to get
> high speed access as Brett is commenting.  Prices may be low at the major
> DCs but out in these areas expect $10/Mb or more, sometimes not including
> loop.
>
> - Jared

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:12 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> 
>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:
>> 
>>> - Original Message -
 From: "Owen DeLong" 
>>> 
 But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize
 that
 there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
>>> 
>>> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
>>> transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by
>>> an IP packet from'"
>>> -- Seth Breidbart.
>> 
>> Note that the sentence is incomplete
> 
> It actually isn't, no.
> 
> The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied 
> to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's
> a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result.
> 
>>  and as soon as you put something
>> after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different
>> answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you
>> put at the right hand side.
>> 
>> Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity
>> and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly
>> variable and more subjective than you may realize.
> 
> Not really.
> 
>> What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different
>> equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of
>> them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated
>> networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying
>> extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate
>> in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace
>> collision avoidance and address distribution.
> 
> Hence "transitive".  It's not really an accident that "transit" comes
> from the same root.
> 
> "The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed
> of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you
> can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay;
> that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way
> in his oft-quoted statement.

And my point is that when you look at it in detail, there's no such thing. 
There are many hosts which have public IP addresses which can reach different 
subsets of "the internet" than other hosts which also have public IP addresses 
and can talk to each other.

It is very easy to choose a selection of hosts and be unable to solve that 
function with a single solution set for the entire set of hosts, yet by any 
vernacular definition of "the internet", all of the hosts in question would be 
"on the internet".

That's my point. The devil is in the details, but in reality, the internet is 
much more precarious, variable, and generally a convenient term of art for 
something that mostly otherwise defies description.

In fact, I've always loved the description of "You can tell how much someone 
understands the detailed workings of the internet by what amazes them."

Almost no detailed knowledge:   Amazed by everything one can do.
Some detailed knowledge:Amazed by all the different places one 
can reach and how much information is available.
Near complete knowledge:Amazed that it works at all.

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> But the part that will really bend your mind is when
> you realize that there is no such thing as
> "THE Internet".

Hi Owen,

Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities
(cells) operating cooperatively and competitively in many interesting
ways all based on the same core "code," but I have to think you'd take
offense if I said there was no such thing as "Owen Delong."

Poor Internet can't get no respect...

Regards,
Bill Herrin



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

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[joel jaeggli]

On 7/15/14, 10:04 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> 
>> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:

>> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And
>> caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.
> 
> 
> BTW, with the move from HTTP to HTTPS due to privacy concerns, every cache
> efficiency you take for granted will be lost in a few years time...

HLS over https is already becoming common enough in the case where you
need to embedd it in an otherwise secure page. one assumes that will
eventually be ubiquitous.

> 
> Rubens
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong" 

> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> 
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> >
> >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize
> >> that
> >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> >
> > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
> > transitive, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by
> > an IP packet from'"
> > -- Seth Breidbart.
> 
> Note that the sentence is incomplete

It actually isn't, no.

The quoted segment is, as noted, a *relationship*; ie: a function applied 
to a domain of IP addresses to produce a range of other IP addresses; it's
a *function*, and the closure applies it to produce a result.

>   and as soon as you put something
> after "from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different
> answers for the left hand side of that statement depending on what you
> put at the right hand side.
> 
> Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity
> and the definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly
> variable and more subjective than you may realize.

Not really.

> What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different
> equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of
> them is made up of a collection of independently owned and operated
> networks that happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying
> extents and happen to have agreed to a common protocol and participate
> in some of the same management schemes for things like namespace
> collision avoidance and address distribution.

Hence "transitive".  It's not really an accident that "transit" comes
from the same root.

"The Internet" for all the purposes we generally use it here is composed
of all the machines with publicly routable IP addresses between which you
can move packets, regardless of what they're hooked to, or who they pay;
that was the point Seth made in a much more mathematical-sounding way
in his oft-quoted statement.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> 
>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
> 
> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
> symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
> -- Seth Breidbart.
> 

Note that the sentence is incomplete and as soon as you put something after 
"from" that is actually meaningful, you end up with different answers for the 
left hand side of that statement depending on what you put at the right hand 
side.

Further, even that definition doesn't define a single cohesive entity and the 
definition of "can be reached by an IP packet" is highly variable and more 
subjective than you may realize.

What we commonly refer to as "THE Internet" is really many different 
equivalence classes similar to what is described above, but each of them is 
made up of a collection of independently owned and operated networks that 
happen to cooperate on traffic delivery to varying extents and happen to have 
agreed to a common protocol and participate in some of the same management 
schemes for things like namespace collision avoidance and address distribution.

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

 Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein" 

> I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
> have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3
> or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".

Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you count cellphone tethering.

Otherwise, I would assume it's closer to 85/12/3.

Could you dig that up, Barry?

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong" 

> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".

"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive, 
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
-- Seth Breidbart.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Barry Shein]

I meant that comment as more of a snark that if someone wants to argue
let's let the market take care of it then first we should reign in the
govt-issued monopolies and small-N oligopolies.

I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3
or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".

There has been massive cross-subsidization from voice monopolies also.

The whole thing stinks if one cherishes anything resembling a free and
open market.

But worse, much worse, are the vertical trusts.

Comcast is the nation's major CATV provider with on demand and pay per
view video.

AND Comcast owns NBC Universal.

This is like one company owning almost all the auto manufacturers,
petroleum and gasoline companies, refineries, tire manufacturers, and
the roads and road construction companies. And obtained all that by
government fiat.

All that's left, to beat the analogy to death, is one is more or less
free to drive where they want. And now they're working on that!

And it's getting worse not better (e.g., Comcast is trying to acquire
#2 Time-Warner.) Shall we wait for them to merge with Verizon and then
AT&T before we smell the coffee?

Calling on the FCC to straighten any of this out is nonsense, they
don't have the jurisdiction for starters. And, worse, the FCC's
primary product is media censorship.

What we need is the Dept of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
to enforce anti-trust law probably with the help of Congress (yeah
good luck with that.)

The FCC is what happens AFTER we admit that we WANT it all to be one
big monopoly like AT&T was pre-breakup. Then of course we'd have to
regulate that monopoly. That's why the FCC was created (and spectrum
management.)

Right now it's the worst of both worlds, they get the effective
monopoly with protections and almost none of the regulation.

We're in a pickle.

On July 17, 2014 at 03:00 o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) wrote:
 (me...)
 > > Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly
 > > protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free
 > > and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they
 > > already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated
 > > sinecures.
 > 
 > The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be 
 > facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or 
 > small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will 
 > result as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much 
 > to put facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving 
 > the same area.
 > 
 > That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with 
 > large colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a 
 > municipality, NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to 
 > somehow be feasible).
 > 
 > Owen
 > 
 > [1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given 
 > distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served 
 > by common transmission technologies available at the time of construction 
 > with costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, 
 > but it may be more).
 > 

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jima]

On Thu, July 10, 2014 8:01 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
>
(...)
>
>   
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth

 And today, Level 3 responds:
http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/

 BRB, I need to make some popcorn.

 Jima

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Eliot Lear]

On 7/13/14, 5:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine
> that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average
> person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those
> poor souls who are double or triple NATTed is "on drugs"

You know I have a name for this now:

(Keith) Moore's Law is that every conversation will eventually
degenerate into a NAT debate.

Eliot
ps: with apologies to Keith.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Jared Mauch]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert  wrote:

>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
>> 
>> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
>> 
>>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.  
>>> What conversations have you had with them?...
>> 
>> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several 
>> times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at 
>> that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us 
>> to either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits 
>> on rented land).
> 
> Local fiber provider?  How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in Laramie?
> 
> And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem.  There are a 
> bunch.  I can recommend one privately if you can't find one.
> 
> Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only does 
> not scale.

The problem is partly a technological one.  If you have a fiber span from 
east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi 
amplifier.  That OEO cost isn't "very high", but hitting every city like that 
becomes expensive quickly.  This is why your 10G from EQUINIX-SJ to EQUNIX-ASH 
costs the same as the 10G loop from the DC to your local office.  The cost is 
the OEO ends.  If you're not in a fiber rich environment you are screwed.  I 
have at&t fiber less than 1200 feet from me but they do not offer any 
non-dialtone services in my area.  I'm all-poles to the end of the new comcast 
segment as well but due to a mid-part that doesn't have the density required to 
meet their metrics there continue to be only fixed wireless choices here.

Others have suggested the UBNT gear.  I'm using it myself, but I'll say.. it 
still leaves a lot to be desired.  It's mostly meant for use in less developed 
countries.  Their latest 5Ghz access gear often takes 6-12 months to get FCC 
certified to operate in the full 5ghz band.  With the recent opening all the 
way down to 5.1 this spring with the FCC that certification process restarted.  
They are great for hopping short distances at high speeds in the US, but are 
very susceptible to interference.  (The NanoBeam, now PowerBeam is a bit 
better).

my backhaul is 3 miles and works well for my use case.  Cheaper than the T1 
before and higher speeds.  There's a lot of people in wispa around the edges 
you can find doing things, and many others doing it that aren't in wispa.  Most 
are small businesses (Some are larger) and suffer from poor business choices, 
but the biggest problem I see is lack of ability to get high speed access as 
Brett is commenting.  Prices may be low at the major DCs but out in these areas 
expect $10/Mb or more, sometimes not including loop.

- Jared

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large or 
x-large provider?

I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for XX-Small, 
X-Small,
Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that 
qualified for /24s
(the max size for a large organization, one as an additional and one as an 
initial). I can tell you
for certain that the scrutiny on ARIN's part has been very nearly identical in 
all cases. If
anything, I got more scrutiny on some of the bigger requests than any of the 
smaller ones.

Further, ARIN also has economies of scale, because you are paying for 
registration services,
not IP addresses. No matter how much you want to keep trying to ignore that, 
the reality is
that if anything, the bigger organizations are the ones potentially getting 
overcharged because
the records for a /16 cost roughly the same to maintain as the records for a 
/48.

There are some mitigating factors (numbers of SWIPs, frequency of additional 
requests,
quality of request submissions, etc.), but exact cost accounting and billing 
based on it
would be a bigger nightmare that might cost more to administer than is 
collected under
the current system.

While I will agree that some of the changes to the ARIN fee structure in the 
last round
were not for the good, I really don't think your argument about price per IP 
has any
merit whatsoever as it is completely divorced from the reality of what you are 
paying
ARIN for.

Owen

On Jul 15, 2014, at 07:58 , Brett Glass  wrote:

> Matt:
> 
> Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
> shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
> Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no 
> reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason 
> for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little
> guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny.
> 
> --Brett Glass
> 
> At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
> 
>> While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
>> analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
>> argument:
>> 
>> Annual Fee   Max CIDR$/IP
>> $500 /22 0.49
>> $1000/20 0.24
>> $2000/18 0.12
>> $4000/16 0.06
>> $8000/14 0.03
>> $16000   /12 0.02
>> $32000   > /12   Mastercard!
>> 
>> Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
>> purchases.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 14, 2014, at 23:24 , Matt Palmer  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
>> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>>> Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, 
>> 
>> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger 
>> ones. And a much
>> larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to 
>> start with.
> 
> While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
> analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
> argument:
> 
Annual Fee   Max CIDR$/IP
$500 /40 <0.01
$1000/36 way<0.01
$2000/32 way way<0.01
$4000/28 far <0.01
$8000/24 way far <0.01
$16000   /20 tremendoulsy <0.01
$32000   > /20   Mastercard!

> Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
> purchases.  I note that even LARIAT does this.  You charge $60 for
> 1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps.  Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to
> ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps?

More importantly, in those cases, you are paying for units of a product.

ARIN is a registry, kind of like your local DMV. Have you noticed that if you 
own more than one vehicle, you don't pay the same amount for those vehicles? 
Did you know that most DMV's have fleet registration discounts where you pay 
less per vehicle to register multiple vehicles?

In the case of ARIN, you are not buying IP addresses from ARIN. You are paying 
ARIN for the service
of registering the block(s) to you for uniqueness among cooperating entities.

So arguing about ARIN fees in terms of cost per IP is absurd.

Oh, and I've taken the liberty of correcting the prefix sizes in the above 
table to reflect the modern internet, rather than the antiquated prefix and 
pricing data presented before.

Owen

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 14, 2014, at 21:21 , Brett Glass  wrote:

> Mike:
> 
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and 
> primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and, 
> after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness 
> it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is 
> no different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a large 
> expense that would not produce any additional value for my customers but 
> could force me to raise their fees -- something which I absolutely do not 
> want to do.

Interesting... I, and many of my customers, have ASNs and are running BGP and 
haven't had to tweak or babysit it for years. It just cruises along doing the 
right thing.

Generally, we only have to modify it when we add/move/change a peering and/or 
transit relationship.

> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone 
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me 
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.

That's fine, and from the rest of the world's perspective, your network is just 
another part of their network. You are invisible and irrelevant.

> As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it; 
> content providers at the edge do not.

I disagree. Many content and eyeball networks engage in a variety of forms of 
peering in various situations and for various reasons. The definition of 
"peering" is an exterior gateway protocol adjacency formed between two routers 
in different autonomous systems. (note, I use the term exterior gateway 
protocol in the generic sense, where BGP is the most prominent example du jour, 
not to specifically refer to the now antiquated EGP of days gone by).

> Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is trying 
> to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on the 
> resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more efficient. We 
> have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only for it to be 
> equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such 
> as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has 
> refused to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken 
> down and we are looking at other solutions.

Nope... Netflix is trying to help their customers and make it as easy as they 
reasonably can for the eyeball networks that serve those customers.

Some less than scrupulous eyeball networks seem to be fighting a war to try and 
extort Netflix to subsidize their operations, and you have thus placed yourself 
in some interesting and dubious company by attempting to carry out a similar 
attempt at extortion. Perhaps you are emboldened by the success of one or more 
of these very large eyeball networks into thinking that this is how the world 
should operate. Perhaps something else drives your beliefs.

Either way, I suspect that if your entire subscriber base disappeared from 
Netflix' customer roles, they would barely notice, if at all. OTOH, I suspect 
you get fairly regular complaints from your customers because you don't provide 
adequate bandwidth to enough of the internet to include reliable functional 
access to Netflix as part of your product line.

Regardless of what you say in the fine print, your customers are expecting that 
they are buying access to the entire internet, including Netflix. They're 
asking for those packets from Netflix and once Netflix gets them to the front 
door of one or more of the ASNs advertising your customer's network numbers, 
Netflix has done their job. From there, your customers have paid you to take 
those bits and deliver them. Your failure to do so is just that... Your 
failure. Trying to get Netflix to help compensate you for a business model that 
doesn't provide sufficient revenue to correct the situation is absurd at best.

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

> Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly
> protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free
> and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they
> already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated
> sinecures.

The problem with this is that so long as service providers are allowed to be 
facilities providers, there is an economic natural tendency to monopoly or 
small-N oligopoly in all but the densest of population centers that will result 
as a simple matter of external reality. It simply costs too damn much to put 
facilities in for there to be large-N copies of facilities serving the same 
area.

That is one of the reasons I'm such a huge fan of home-run SWCs[1] with large 
colos run by a facilities only provider, whether that FOP is a municipality, 
NGO, or for profit entity (or even multiples if that were to somehow be 
feasible).

Owen

[1] Serving "Wire" Center -- a hub where all of the fiber from a given 
distribution area (of radius N where N < maximum reasonable distance served by 
common transmission technologies available at the time of construction with 
costs in reason for household usage. Today, I believe that's about 5km, but it 
may be more).

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 14, 2014, at 08:17 , Dave Crocker  wrote:

> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
>>> or are you equating shell access with isp?  that would be novel.  unix
>>> shell != internet.
>> 
>> You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a
>> machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you
>> were "on the internet"?
> 
> 
> An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
> 
>   To Be "On" the Internet
> 
>   March, 1995
>   http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1775

But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that there is 
no such thing as "THE Internet".

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 17 July 2014 00:57, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on
> Netlfix". If Netflix only peered
> in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive
> nationwide network, I'd
> say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major
> peering centers already and continues
> to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and
> third-tier peering centers. I'd say
> that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in
> peering centers Netflix is in, they
> have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection
> of transit providers to move the
> bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly.
>

Except they don't. Excuse me for talking about the world outside America.
Netflix believes Denmark is an important enough market to pay for danish
subtitles for their entire catalog and to have Denmark as a launch market
for their service in Europe. But they can't be bothered to have a physical
presence in Denmark. We have to go to a different country and a long way at
that, to get to Stockholm in Sweden, where Netflix peers at the Netnod IX.

Some danish ISPs do peer at Netnod, but it is only the ones that are big
enough to qualify for a cache anyway. It is not economical to buy a link to
Stockholm. Transit is cheaper, so that is what we are all doing.

Then Netflix announces that you have to either have a cache or to peer
directly with Netflix to get Super HD. This is a case of reverse net
neutrality: The content provider is filtering content to ISPs that wont pay
the transit bill for the content provider. "for the content provider" not
"to the content provider". We pay our transit, it should not be our problem
how Netflix pays theirs.

Luckily this is so far only theory. We still get the Super HD. Either
Netflix never implemented the policy or one of our transit providers made a
deal with Netflix. I am not sure which one.

But nevertheless even threatening to play reverse net neutrality games is
NOT being the good guy.

If transit is too expensive for Netflix, they should put in a shared cache
at the danish IX (DIX) in Copenhagen. We would all be happy to peer with
Netflix at that location. If Netflix chooses to host the cache at Interxion
they also get access to the Netnod IX that covers Denmark and southern
Sweden, a metropolitan area of more than 10 million people.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Joly MacFie]

FCC Counsel Jonathan Sallet spoke at the USA-IGF today -  I've pulled it
out as a clip
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014/videos/56799195


-- 
---
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: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 16, 2014, at 17:14 , Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass  wrote:
>> 
>>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>>> 
 ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
 the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
 look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
>>> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
>>> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix
>>> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix
>>> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They
>>> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include
>>> paying ransom to third parties.
>> Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers
>> asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they
>> paid Netflix for the content.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in 
> the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them.

Because that was the contract you had with Netflix. Did you also pay the post 
office to bring the DVD to you? (To the best of my knowledge,
Netflix never shipped CDs)?

Yes, if you pay Netflix to pay the delivery charges, I have no problem with 
them paying your ISP. However, in this case, you're paying your ISP, so Netflix 
shouldn't have to. My point is your ISP shouldn't get to double-dip.

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rogan Schlassa]

Hello

This is so simple.

ISP offers xxMbps and should deliver that to the customer.

Dear customer. If you cannot stream full quality, upgrade .

Dear ISP stop promising xxMbps if you advertise a port cap lower than
theoretical port bandwidth. Basically fraud.
On Jul 16, 2014 7:19 PM, "Owen DeLong"  wrote:

>
> On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman 
> wrote:
>
> > Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >
> > [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's
> behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post-
> Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service
> leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ]
> >
> > Jay,
> > Quite agree with you on this stuff.  I used to spend a good part of my
> time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's
> behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too.  But..
> that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say?
> >
> > Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to:
> >
> > 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single
> network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and
> Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate
> demand.
> >
> > 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple
> networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix
> buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit
> networks in the middle.
>
> Well, there are multiple possibilities here...
>
> A:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N<->NETFLIX
> B:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT<->NETFLIX
> C:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->NETFLIX
>
> In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT_A and
> NETFLIX$->TRANSIT_N
> It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between
> TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering.
>
> In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear
> wehter:
> B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX  (transit
> double-dip)
> B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free
> with Netflix (Access pays transit)
> B3: TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with
> Transit (Netflix pays transit)
>
> I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three
> scenarios.
>
> In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually
> about. Obviuosly, CUST$->ACCESS_NETWORK.
> The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK<-$NETFLIX,
> which is what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very
> large ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my
> opinion, this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network
> is being paid by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery.
>
> As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and
> having $BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only
> to have $CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they
> will fork over my package.
>
> > 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit
> networks, bandwidth across them).  Those are additional costs, that
> wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network.
>
> I don't think that's really part of the argument here.
>
> > 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys
> should pay.
>
> Not really, IMHO. (See above and below)
>
> > 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with
> Netflix making a visible stink about it.
>
> LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not
> the same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that
> market power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision
> that is contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation.
>
> > 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the
> little guys "you pay."  And yes, they're making it a little easier by
> providing the CDN boxes.
>
> Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in
> more detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as
> $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so
> far, Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide
> cost-effective alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of
> ways and allowing the ISP to choose which solution works best for them.
>
> True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe
> with their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of
> the situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large
> fraction of their service geography and to their credit, they are
> continuing to aggressively expand that network.
>
> To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dav

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[David Miller]

On 7/16/2014 8:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass  wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>>>
 ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
 the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
 look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
>>> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
>>> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix
>>> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix
>>> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They
>>> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include
>>> paying ransom to third parties.
>> Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers
>> asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they
>> paid Netflix for the content.
>>
>>
> 
> Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD
> in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them.
> 
> Miles Fidelman

Yes, Netflix did pay the postage for shipping CDs out of the fee you
paid them.

However, the mailman drove over roads provided and maintained by
taxpayers to place that CD into a mailbox that you bought, owned, and
maintained.  If the glut of CDs had required bigger postal vehicles,
then Netflix would not have bought bigger vehicles for the postal
service.  If the CD didn't fit in your mailbox, then Netflix would not
have paid for a bigger mailbox for you.

-DMM



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[mcfbbqroast .]

Brett,

Why would Netflix pay your ISP?

You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP
addresses.

What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the
network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power.

This is the true risk. Of Netflix is also paying money to the ISP, how do
we know the true cost of the connection? A big ISP can fight their way into
a position where no other ISP can compete.

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Doug Barton]

On 07/16/2014 05:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD
in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them.


And now they pay to pump bits out from their servers to their customers. 
What's your point?


Doug

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman  wrote:

> Jay Ashworth wrote:
> 
> [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's 
> behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- 
> Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service 
> leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ]
> 
> Jay,
> Quite agree with you on this stuff.  I used to spend a good part of my time 
> working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on 
> those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too.  But.. that's kind of 
> a different issue, wouldn't you say?
> 
> Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to:
> 
> 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - 
> customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be 
> paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand.
> 
> 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple 
> networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys 
> aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in 
> the middle.

Well, there are multiple possibilities here...

A:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N<->NETFLIX
B:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->TRANSIT<->NETFLIX
C:  CUST<->ACCESS_NETWORK<->NETFLIX

In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT_A and 
NETFLIX$->TRANSIT_N
It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between 
TRANSIT_A<->TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering.

In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $->ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear 
wehter:
B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX  (transit double-dip)
B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$->TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free with 
Netflix (Access pays transit)
B3: TRANSIT<-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with Transit 
(Netflix pays transit)

I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three scenarios.

In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually about. 
Obviuosly, CUST$->ACCESS_NETWORK.
The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK<-$NETFLIX, which is 
what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very large 
ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my opinion, 
this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network is being paid 
by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery.

As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and having 
$BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only to have 
$CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they will fork 
over my package.

> 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, 
> bandwidth across them).  Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if 
> everyone were connected to the same network.

I don't think that's really part of the argument here.

> 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should 
> pay.

Not really, IMHO. (See above and below)

> 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say "Netflix pays" - with Netflix 
> making a visible stink about it.

LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not the 
same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that market 
power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision that is 
contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation.

> 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little 
> guys "you pay."  And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the 
> CDN boxes.

Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in more 
detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as 
$LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so far, 
Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide cost-effective 
alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of ways and allowing 
the ISP to choose which solution works best for them.

True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe with 
their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of the 
situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large fraction 
of their service geography and to their credit, they are continuing to 
aggressively expand that network.

To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dave will correct me if I am wrong), 
Netflix would prefer to deliver bits settlement free directly to as many 
ACCESS_PROVIDERS as possible, because it saves Netflix from paying transit 
costs and it saves ACCESS_PROVIDERS from paying additional circuit or transit 
costs and it provides a better customer experience all around.

In cases where Netflix' network does not geographically overlap 
$ACCESS_PROVIDER's net

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Miles Fidelman]

Owen DeLong wrote:

On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass  wrote:


At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:


ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,

My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix
should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix
subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They
want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include
paying ransom to third parties.

Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers
asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they
paid Netflix for the content.




Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD 
in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them.


Miles Fidelman

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

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass  wrote:

> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
> 
>> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
>> the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
>> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, 
> 
> My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
> additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix
> should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix
> subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They
> want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include
> paying ransom to third parties.

Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers
asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they
paid Netflix for the content.

You are in the delivery business.

Now, if you didn't charge your customers at all and charged all the
content providers, instead, a la the way it is done with various shipping
companies where $BOX_STORE pays the shipping company to deliver
their product and bills the customer separately for shipping (or builds the
cost of shipping into the price), then no problem.

However, that's not what you want.

You want to double dip. You want to charge your customers to deliver
the bits they ask for from Netflix (and everyone else), then turn around
and ask Netflix (and possibly others) to also pay you for the same delivery.

It would be like FedEx or OnTrac taking money from Amazon for a shipment
and then showing up at my house and asking me to pay extra or they won't
give me my package.

> We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain 
> minimum capacity  to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street 
> in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain 
> maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific
> third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, 
> it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair,
> because we would be doing something special just for it -- something
> which costs money.

OK, so what's the problem? If I were Netflix, I probably wouldn't pay you,
either. I'd suggest to any customers we had in common that they seek out
a provider that was willing to build a better network.

> If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear
> us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have
> no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly

Sorry, but explaining to the user that the reason their content isn't working as
well as it should is because there is insufficient bandwidth from their ISP to
Netflix is a simple statement of fact, not a smear campaign.

Don't like it, build a network better suited to your customer's demands.

> considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that
> IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of
> bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly --
> actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their
> resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee.

Go for it!  If you can compete with Netflix on price and quality of content
and user experience, you might succeed and you might even put them out
of business. That's great for everyone. I suspect, instead, that you'll get a
pretty quick lesson in economics, but I encourage you to try because it
can't possibly harm me if you do so and there's good upside for me if you
somehow succeed.

> This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement
> to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast
> that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order.

ISPs might sign on, but what about their customers? Why would the
customer want to pay what that service is likely to cost?

Or do you think you can bury Netflix without customers signing up?

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

> However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an
> ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution
> is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in
> encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate,
> secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to obtain
> usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an
> ISP-owned cache. Problem solved.

That works for individual sessions, but not for the cache scenario. Either 
everyone
gets the same key (which is equivalent to no key at all) or the cache has to be
able to participate in the encryption.

Beyond that small fly in the ointment, I believe Netflix current model operates 
pretty
much as you suggest. However, their cache boxes have to participate actively in 
the
encryption in order to avoid providing the same decryption key to everyone for 
any
given show. I suspect (though I don't know) that encrypted content is loaded 
onto
the cache in a form encrypted with a key known to the software on the cache. 
That
each streaming request causes said content to be decrypted and immediately 
re-encrypted
with a user-specific key and/or session-specific key and then sent to the user.

Hence the requirement that the cache be on a box run by Netflix, and probably 
part of
the reason for the greater power requirements.

Owen

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Michael Thomas]

On 7/16/14, 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote:




If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones,
will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.

I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying 
to find ways
to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their 
customers
accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone 
involved.


Indeed. We've heard this at each turn of the bandwidth crank from OMG 
JPG's! to OMG VoIP!

to OMG HD! to OMG Quantum Teleportation! (ok, maybe not the last. yet.)

Nobody's owed a business model, and we all know it's messy around the 
edges. Suck it up,

and maybe your customers will too.

Mike

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote:

> At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
> 
>> How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
> 
> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix
> would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting 
> from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us
> customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix
> users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of 
> its
> freight.

So, to sum up, Brett, you feel that Netflix should be forced to bill their 
BrettGlassNet users
extra to cover what they pay to BrettGlassNet to reach the users to deliver the 
content the
users have requested instead of expecting you to bill the users for that 
yourself.

Because Netflix refuses to do this and has enough of a market presence that you 
aren't
succeeding so well telling your customers that they shouldn't care so much 
about Netflix,
you're blaming Netflix for this problem? It's a shame to see a small provider 
acting so much
like the big $CABLECO and $TELCO providers thinking that they have a right to 
extort
money from content providers to avoid billing their subscribers more accurately.

> more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of 
> line 
> because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive
> connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing 
> to 
> allow caching.

The fact that some access provider was able to extort Netflix because they are 
a bigger
800# gorilla than Netflix shouldn't make you expect that you can extort Netflix 
in the same
way, nor does it mean that by refusing to be extorted by smaller providers, 
Netflix is
extorting you with their market position. In an ideal world, frankly, none of 
the access providers
would be allowed to double-dip like this. You should have to bill your 
customers for the
traffic you deliver to them. If they want more than your network can 
accommodate at what
they currently pay, then they should have to pay. How you sort that out with 
your customers
is your business. If you don't want your customers that don't use Netflix to 
subsidize your
customers that use Netflix, use a usage-sensitive pricing or charge a premium 
service of
some sort or whatever. That's between you and your customers (so long as you 
have
competition and your customers have choice).

> If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones,
> will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. 

I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying 
to find ways
to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their 
customers
accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone 
involved.

> Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come 
> along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily 
> destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and
> lower costs due to caching at the ISP.

Your best hope is to see your competition forced to move to a pricing model 
that reflects the
costs of delivering what their customers demand so that you can move to a 
similar pricing model
without losing customers.

It's not that I'm insensitive to your situation, just that I see this as an 
example of one of the many
ways in which the current model has become utterly dysfunctional and attempting 
to perpetuate
it seems ill-advised to me.

If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on 
Netlfix". If Netflix only peered
in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive 
nationwide network, I'd
say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major peering 
centers already and continues
to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and third-tier 
peering centers. I'd say
that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in 
peering centers Netflix is in, they
have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection of 
transit providers to move the
bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly.

It seems to me that Netflix is being about as good a net citizen as is possible 
and I, for one, consider
them an example that should be emulated.

Access providers should have to face the reality that they are charging their 
customers to deliver bits
they request to them. If the price they charge is insufficient to cover their 
costs in doing so, then they
need to find ways to solve that problem. It is not Netflix fault that your 
customers want more bits from
Netflix than they want from some other content provider, that's just Netflix 
having a successful business.
I might have bought the idea that Netflix as a new p

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[George Herbert]

> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> 
> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
> 
>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.  
>> What conversations have you had with them?...
> 
> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate several 
> times higher than either of our existing upstreams for bandwidth. Even at 
> that price, they refused to let us link to them via wireless (requiring us to 
> either buy easements or buy land adjacent to their building, which sits on 
> rented land).
> 
> --Brett Glass
> 

Local fiber provider?  How does everyone else tie in to Layer3 in Laramie?

And, find a Layer3 reseller who can handle the cost problem.  There are a 
bunch.  I can recommend one privately if you can't find one.

Buying retail markups from the vendor who wants to sell wholesale only does not 
scale.


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:

Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly 
south.  What conversations have you had with them?...


At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate 
several times higher than either of our existing upstreams for 
bandwidth. Even at that price, they refused to let us link to them 
via wireless (requiring us to either buy easements or buy land 
adjacent to their building, which sits on rented land).


--Brett Glass

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[George Herbert]

> On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> 
> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> 
>> Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>> much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>> an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
>> flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you?
> 
> Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I
> am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do
> better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.)
> 
> --Brett Glass
> 

Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.  What 
conversations have you had with them?...


George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Baldur Norddahl]

Brett, you are missing my point. I am no expert on wireless links and the
equipment I pointed at might be garbage. But you have a backhaul problem
that you need to solve. If not that equipment, then something else.

You are balking up the wrong tree with Netflix. People want high bandwidth
video and an ISP need to be able to provide that. Caching could not solve
your problem, not even close.

Netflix might function at .5 Mbps but that would be their poor quality
setting. People do not want that. They want the Super HD version of the
video. The 6 Mbps version. And this is just now, later on they are going to
want the 4k version of the video.

Netflix is not a monopoly. They are just one player out of many. You can
not expect someone else to solve your backhaul problem. Neither Netflix,
YouTube nor Hulu are charities. They do not really care if your customers
leave you to a competitor, to get the wanted bandwidth. And neither should
they.

You hate the fact that the world is moving to high bandwidth video. We on
the other hand love it. We sell FTTH and it is a selling point for our
technology over, say, wireless internet. We want Netflix to move on to even
higher bandwidth streams.

I can not see how you can stay in the game if you do not adapt. From
everything said here it appears your main problem is that backhaul, so find
a solution. The solution will not come from bashing the video services and
it will not come from starting up your own service. Even if you by some
miracle made a good service, people would STILL want Netflix, HBO, Hulu,
YouTube and many others. Nobody can expect to get a monopoly, not even you.

Caching, were it possible, is not that effective. Say it could save 50% of
the traffic (unlikely) you would still be paying effectively $10 per Mbps
and you would still go broke. You simply can not be paying that much for
traffic in a marked, where everyone else is paying $0.5/Mbps.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>  If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
>> that's your call,
>>
>
> We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
> mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
> is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed
> does not actually save money.
>
> Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad
> neighbor.
>

Actually not, it has a better bps/Hz figure than other unlicensed radios
with comparable bandwidth like 802.11ac. What you are referring to is that
using the same channel for back-haul and for serving users is usually a
problem, but besides some vertical and horizontal separation techniques
that could be used, there is always the option of using 2.4 GHz and 900 MHz
for POP-to-user communication if back-haul is needing that frequency.

If reliability is more important than bandwidth, than reducing modulation
to decrease data-rate but increasing reliability is an option with both
AirFiber and other 802.11 unlicensed gear.


>
> After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what
> is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive
> lessons.


Yes, but not mentioning the choices makes you sound like you are trying to
prove a point instead of actually discussing the technical possibilities. I
was in charge of engineering for a WISP for some years and still have many
contacts with local WISPs, in a country(Brazil) that pretty much resembles
your technical and market challenges... think you have a problem with rain
fade ? US ITU-R rain zone regions seem like blue sky for us.
(http://www.racom.eu/images/radost/images/hw/ray/rain_zone_h.png)


Rubens

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Blake Dunlap]

This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I
know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of
them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is
Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge
sets.

-Blake

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>> If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
>> that's your call,
>
>
> We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
> mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
> is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed
> does not actually save money.
>
> Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad
> neighbor.
>
> After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what
> is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive
> lessons.
>
> --Brett Glass
>

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:


If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
that's your call,


We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed
does not actually save money.

Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad
neighbor.

After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what
is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive
lessons.

--Brett Glass

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rubens Kuhl]

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

> At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
>  Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
>> AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
>>
>
> Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we
> rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not
> meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band
> is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a
> radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some
> miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so
> much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment
> for high capacity point-to-point links.


If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
that's your call, what people are pointing is that there are low-cost
alternatives for low-density networks. If those exceed your requirements,
you move up the food chain to better and more expensive gear, but then you
have more subscribers and more revenue to pay for those.


Rubens

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:


Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.


Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, 
because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data 
sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral 
efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by 
us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in 
our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz 
band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a 
single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high 
capacity point-to-point links.


--Brett Glass 

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Scott Helms]

Brett,

You should investigate TVWS (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well
in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data
rate challenges.

The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of
unlicensed space and it goes much further than the other unlicensed bands
like ISM and UNII.  Technically the same amount of frequency was released
for everyone, but in urban/suburban markets much more is already taken by
licensed over the air TV broadcasters and wireless microphones, both as
licensed users have absolute rights to the frequencies they're using.

If you want to know vendors that supply the gear, since most of the BWA
guys haven't grabbed it yet, let me know and I'll send what I have off list.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any?
>
> It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again,
> I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high
> backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that
> Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this
> is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting
> pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to
> solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for
> workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming
> service that is more ISP-friendly.
>
> >I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use
> >the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer)
>
> We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a
> company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and
> Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have
> such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are
> attempting
> to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us,
> which
> is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as
> valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the
> amount
> per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are
> higher.
>
> >but none of your plans
> >are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per
> >stream for Super HD).
>
> Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether
> that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves
> say.)
>
> >Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in
> rural areas.
>
> Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing
> about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price
> gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has
> also
> failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide
> much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth
> carefully.
> We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a
> choice
> of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied
> with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's
> algorithm,
> a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for
> each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly.
> So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good
> experience.
> Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed
> speeds.
>
> We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But
> Netflix
> doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their
> customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste.
>
> >I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and
> >then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to
> >40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber.
>
> Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark
> fiber
> in our area.
>
> >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
> >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/
>
> That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade.
> Most of
> our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our
> options;
> we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave
> links
> throughout our network.
>
> Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout
> my entire
> life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rubens Kuhl]

>
> >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
> >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/
>
> That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade.
> Most of
> our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our
> options;
> we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave
> links
> throughout our network.
>
>
Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.


Rubens

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
 
>If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? 

It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again,
I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high
backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that
Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this
is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting
pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to
solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for
workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming
service that is more ISP-friendly.

>I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use
>the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) 

We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a
company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and
Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have 
such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are attempting 
to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, which 
is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as
valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the amount
per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are higher.

>but none of your plans
>are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per
>stream for Super HD). 

Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether
that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves
say.)

>Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural 
>areas.

Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing
about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price
gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has also
failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide
much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth 
carefully.
We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a 
choice
of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied
with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's 
algorithm, 
a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for
each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly.
So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good experience.
Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed 
speeds.

We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But Netflix 
doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their 
customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste.

>I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and
>then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to
>40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber.

Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark fiber
in our area.

>Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
>using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/

That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of 
our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our 
options; 
we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links 
throughout our network.

Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout my 
entire 
life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more.

--Brett Glass

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>
>  The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of
>> money.
>>
>
> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And
> caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.


BTW, with the move from HTTP to HTTPS due to privacy concerns, every cache
efficiency you take for granted will be lost in a few years time...


Rubens

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Matthew Kaufman]

If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on 
that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring 
Netflix traffic to your customers.


Matthew Kaufman

On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:

Matt:

Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no
reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason
for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little
guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny.

--Brett Glass

At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
  

While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
argument:

Annual Fee   Max CIDR$/IP
$500 /22 0.49
$1000/20 0.24
$2000/18 0.12
$4000/16 0.06
$8000/14 0.03
$16000   /12 0.02
$32000   > /12   Mastercard!

Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
purchases.

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Matthew Kaufman]

On 7/13/2014 12:54 PM, na...@brettglass.com wrote:


However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an
ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the 
solution
is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the 
streams in

encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate,
secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to 
obtain

usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an
ISP-owned cache. Problem solved.


Unless of course you've promised the content owner that you would be 
encrypting each delivery with a different key (because they'd been 
burned before by things like DVDs, which do not). Then not "problem 
solved" at all.


You're also assuming that every customer is viewing the same 
bitrate/resolution/aspect ratio. With multi-bitrate streaming, there's 
often low overlap between the segments adjacent customers wish to 
load... even if the content is not encrypted, or is encrypted with the 
same DRM key for everyone.


Of course, the facts of the situation don't appear to matter really...

Matthew Kaufman

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[list]

On 07/15/2014 07:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses:
> If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump
> them, you will have to renumber.  That is a big deal for anyone with
> a large internet facing presence and usually results in at least some
> downtime.  Due to the way DNS works (cacheing), there is no really
> instantaneous way to change all the addressing on your publicly
> facing systems without incurring some interruption.  You also could
> have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their network
> whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny
> at all.  It can also be complex announcing address space you received
> from one provider through another provider's network especially if
> those two providers change their peering arrangements between them.

OK, I used to work for a Web hosting company who (at the start of my
tenure) did not have an ASN, and was not using BGP.  Wasn't multi-homed,
either.  Every time they changed providers, they had to renumber.  Now,
this was a Linux house, very little Windows hosting, so the last time
they renumbered from one upstream number space to another, I came up
with a way to bridge the DNS update problem.

1)  First step was to shorten the old times on DNS, about a month in
advance of the changeover.
2)  I had both upstreams on an overlap of two months.
3)  I shifted all outgoing traffic to the new circuit, and DNS to the
new numbers
4)  In each of the Linux servers, I had both IP addresses configured.
5)  In each box, the old address was then NATted to the new address.

During the two-month transition period, my Web servers would answer to
both addresses, and kept everything straight with NAT so that outgoing
traffic exited the boxes using the same circuit.

After two months, I took all the jerry-rigging out, and canceled the old
circuit.

Result: absolute minimum down-time for the Web sites, even for
cable-based surfers.

It was even easier when the hosting company got their own IP block and
ASN.  We just added the advertisements into the edge network, and did
the same shuffle to our owned IP addresses.  After a couple of months,
we gave back the old addresses and stopped announcing them (by
prearrangement with our legacy upstream, by the way.)  Then we were home
free and portable.

Renumbering doesn't have to be a customer nightmare, if you plan
carefully and use all the facilities you have at your disposal.

And the earlier renumbering was done at the time that cable companies
used to hold onto DNS caches FOREVER.  Are those days over?  I sure hope so.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[John Curran]

On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
> shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!

Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there
were specific costs associated with administration of individual IP addresses, 
ARIN would have collapsed under the astronomical cost increase of receiving 
the allocation of 83,076,749,736,557,242,056,487,941,267,521,536 [/12] IPv6
addresses for this region...)

Actual cost to administer, i.e. maintain in the database and ARIN systems, 
invoice each holder, provide reverse DNS, etc. is actually remarkably similar 
for ARIN regardless of address block size, e.g.whether it is IPv4 /8, /16, 
/20, /24 or an IPv6 /32 or /48.

ARIN has consistently lowered ISP fees over the years (more than four times so 
far) but it is still worth revisiting, and there is a Fee Structure Review 
Report 
that will be forthcoming that looks at very approaches going forward.  I will
make sure to notify the NANOG community as well, as we want as many voices as
possible in the discussion which will take place the latter half of this year.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 15 July 2014 17:03, Brett Glass  wrote:

> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
> >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
> >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
> >flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you?
>
> Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I
> am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do
> better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.)
>

If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? You would
still pay for transport to your site. Or do you expect Netflix to also pay
that? Together with Google for YouTube, Hulu for their share etc? It just
does not work that way.

I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use
the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) but none of your plans
are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per
stream for Super HD). I think you need to rethink a few things if you want
to stay in business. I am sitting here on a 70 Mbps ADSL, Cable is often
100+ Mbps and my own ISP is selling 1000 Mbps service. Selling 1 Mbps is
just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas.

I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and
then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to
40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber.

Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/

Regards,

Baldur

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Naslund, Steve]

Which is their perfect right as a business.  If their service starts sucking 
because of it, they will not be in business long.  The end user will quickly 
figure out the Netflix sucks no matter who your Internet provider is and poof, 
they will be gone.  Market forces at work.

Steve

>>The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount 
>>of money.

>I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. 
>And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.

>--Brett Glass

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Naslund, Steve]

I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett.  The reason the cost goes 
down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed 
address by address, they are managed as a single entity.  ARIN has almost the 
same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24 or a /8.  That 
is why there is economy of scale involved.  The bigger block of course costs 
more because they are trying to get people to use the smallest space possible.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>>Matt:

>>>Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in 
>>>shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
>>>Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no reason 
>>>for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason for it not to 
>>>be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little guys, who get 
>>disproportionate scrutiny.

>>>--Brett Glass

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:

The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least 
amount of money.


I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. 
And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.


--Brett Glass

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Bell]

On 15 July 2014 04:51, Brett Glass  wrote:
> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as
> a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)

In my book (As a network operator in the UK) Netflix's proposed
arrangement is peering. They have traffic they need to get onto my
network. I don't want to pay transit. They don't want to pay transit.
I'm happily going to connect to them for free. Why should I charge
them? My (our?) customer wants the data they are sending, so I need to
find some way to get it to them. This is the most cost affective,
deterministic, controllable way I have.

> ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP,
> so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated
> link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used.

They may not be an ISP in the traditional sense, ie you can't buy
hosting, an access circuit etc from them, however they are a provider
of a service that is accessible via the Internet.

Dave

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
 
>Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
>flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you?

Because I'd be charged at least as much per Mbps for raw transport as I
am paying now. (I look at pricing every quarter to see if I can do
better. Because I'm rural it has not happened.)

--Brett Glass

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

Matt:

Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no 
reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason 
for it not to be. Big carriers waste a lot of IPs compared to little
guys, who get disproportionate scrutiny.

--Brett Glass

At 12:24 AM 7/15/2014, Matt Palmer wrote:
 
>While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
>analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
>argument:
>
>Annual Fee   Max CIDR$/IP
>$500 /22 0.49
>$1000/20 0.24
>$2000/18 0.12
>$4000/16 0.06
>$8000/14 0.03
>$16000   /12 0.02
>$32000   > /12   Mastercard!
>
>Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
>purchases.

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Naslund, Steve]

I am just guessing but you probably have not been in the service provider 
space.  Peering in my experience has always required an ASN and BGP as a 
pre-requisite.  That is because all service providers use BGP communities and 
various other mechanisms to control these connections.  Sure you could do a 
point to point static routed circuit but do you really expect me to put in 
static routes for your network and then make sure I don’t announce them to the 
wrong places under my AS number? Oh, and I supposed I have to write ACLs for 
all of your netblocks to be certain that you don't use me for transit.  U, 
nope.  Our networks are far to large and complex to manually manage like that.  
 Just try to ask a provider to do that.  When he stops laughing, let me know 
what he says.

ISPs, by the way, peer in order to minimize the amount of transit they have to 
purchase (almost all ISPs smaller than a tier 1 have at least some paid 
transit) and to direct traffic off of congested links.  If a direct connection 
to NetFlix saves me money on transit and helps my customers that is what I will 
do.  The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of 
money.  That is usually done by getting the traffic directly to an efficient 
exit point ASAP over the least expensive transport medium.

Please don’t go on and on about what might work in theory regarding 
interconnection, a lot of the people on here are the ones that know how things 
work in reality.  Reality is that no one will peer with you without an AS and 
your own space that goes with that.  If you have not reached that level of 
sophistication, nobody is peering with you.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL 




On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, 
> misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as 
> one that doesn't require money to change hands.)
>
> ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not 
> an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing 
> a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for 
> the resources used.
>
> But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection 
> doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a 
> registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or 
> a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual 
> circuit) and a static route would work just fine.
>
> --Brett Glass

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Naslund, Steve]

If you are a multi-homed end user and you feel that a BGP configuration for 
that is a big management nightmare then you probably should not be running BGP. 
 It would take me somewhere less than 15 minutes to set this up with two 
carriers and unless the carrier's are at drastically different tiers, there is 
no need to be doing a ton of "tweaking".  I have run a bunch of networks like 
that and the workload of BGP was not even in my top 100 tasks.

That "awkward and primitive" routing system has scaled pretty well and works 
well enough that there is not any widespread desire to change it.  Sure we 
might change some things today (which we actually have over time, you know 
there are different BGP versions, right?), but if you can come up with a better 
system that is still in widespread use in 30 years, I will be impressed.

Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses:  If you 
are using your upstream provider's address space and dump them, you will have 
to renumber.  That is a big deal for anyone with a large internet facing 
presence and usually results in at least some downtime.  Due to the way DNS 
works (cacheing), there is no really instantaneous way to change all the 
addressing on your publicly facing systems without incurring some interruption. 
 You also could have your upstream provider get acquired or re-arrange their 
network whenever they feel necessary and you do not control your own destiny at 
all.  It can also be complex announcing address space you received from one 
provider through another provider's network especially if those two providers 
change their peering arrangements between them.  As a side benefit of having my 
own AS number, I can avoid or push traffic to certain carriers by changing my 
announcements.  You can't do that without your own AS.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


> Mike:
>
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward 
> and primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and 
> tweaking and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the 
> security or robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a 
> bunch of IP addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what 
> I already have) would be a large expense that would not produce any 
> additional value for my customers but could force me to raise their 
> fees -- something which I absolutely do not want to do.
>
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some 
> backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't 
> charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business 
> move.
>
> As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do 
> it; content providers at the edge do not.
>
> Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is 
> trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it 
> on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more 
> efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked 
> only for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as 
> it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be 
> just as valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's 
> why talks have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other 
> solutions.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>

RE: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Naslund, Steve]

In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually 
beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually 
AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some 
kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for full transit.

Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at 
large.  I can use a paid for transit link to get to the entire Internet 
(hopefully).

I agree that it appears that Netflix should be mostly an access or transit 
customer rather than a peering partner, however since high bandwidth to Netflix 
will make the ISPs customers happy, it is probably beneficial to come to some 
kind of agreement that helps you get the dedicated Netflix connection running.  
This is kind of the arrangement that exists with Akamai, where it is a mutually 
beneficial arrangement.  I host their server which makes my customer happy, 
make Akamai's customer happy, and helps lower my costs by allowing me to 
minimize transit traffic.  I don’t see why Netflix would be treated any 
different.  If carriers don’t like the way Netflix servers work, then don’t put 
them in your network and deal with the bandwidth issues.  It is a technical 
tradeoff whichever way you decide to go.

Transit is paid for bandwidth that "transits" through an AS to the Internet at 
large.  I have the right to send anything to anywhere on a transit circuit from 
say Comcast.  Over a peering circuit, I should only be sending traffic bound 
for a Comcast customer or downstream provider.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 15 July 2014 06:21, Brett Glass  wrote:

> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
>


Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
flatrate for USD 500 per month, so why aren't you?

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Scott Helms]

Matt,

IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point
of view a bit better.  One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows
for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks.  It does frequently
confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and its
even worse if they get connectivity from smaller providers, but it does
effectively allow the ISP to have portable space without having an ASN.
 Frequently the smaller operators are happy to have a /23 of portable space
so they can use that for their static IP customers and deal with the change
of addressing for everyone else.

Please note, this is not a money making operation for us.  Its something we
started doing in ~2003 to avoid having to constantly renumber networks and
disrupt business accounts while allowing the ISPs to shop new bandwidth
providers when they became available.


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

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach 
wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
>
> > Matt,
> >
> > While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP
> > should have an ASN.  Having said that,  I work with multiple operators
> > around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for
> > connectivity to the rest of the Internet.  In that case having a ASN is
> > nice, but serves little to no practical purpose.  For clarity's sake all
> 6
> > of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband
> > subs.
> >
>
> And as long as they're happy with their single upstream
> connectivity picture, more power to them.
>
> But the minute they're less than happy with
> their connectivity option, it would sure be
> nice to have their own ASN and their own
> IP space, so that going to a different upstream
> provider would be possible.  Heck, even just
> having it as a *bargaining point* would be
> useful.
>
> By not having it, they're essentially locking
> the slave collar around their own neck, and
> handing the leash to their upstream, along
> with their wallet.  As a freedom-of-choice
> loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone
> would subject their business to that level
> of slavery.  But I do acknowledge your
> point, that for some category of people,
> they are happy as clams with that
> arrangement.
>
>
> >
> > I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since
> > many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do
> > with Internet access.
> >
>
> Oh, yes; totally agreed.  It's a one-way relationship
> in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive
> ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does
> having an ASN make you an ISP.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Matt
>

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Matt Palmer]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>  
> >Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, 
> 
> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger 
> ones. And a much
> larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to 
> start with.

While the "share of revenue" argument is bogus (as John's cup-of-coffee
analogy made clear), you do have a point with the cost-per-IP-address
argument:

Annual Fee   Max CIDR$/IP
$500 /22 0.49
$1000/20 0.24
$2000/18 0.12
$4000/16 0.06
$8000/14 0.03
$16000   /12 0.02
$32000   > /12   Mastercard!

Then again, the vast majority of businesses have discounts for volume
purchases.  I note that even LARIAT does this.  You charge $60 for
1000Kbps, but $80 for 1500Kbps.  Shouldn't that be $90 for 1500Kbps, to
ensure everyone pays the same price per Kbps?

> It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the
> Internet community at large.

I don't think human beings in general are wired that way.

- Matt

-- 
Politics and religion are just like software and hardware. They all suck,
the documentation is provably incorrect, and all the vendors tell lies.
-- Andrew Dalgleish, in the Monastery

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as
> a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)

'peering' here probably really means 'bgp peer', and it probably also
means to be used in a 'mutually benefiting the two parties' way. which
it seems it would be beneficial to use the pipe to pick up netflix
traffic from the exchange switch, AND to pick up other peer networks'
traffic at the same switch.

This does mean you'd need to use an ASN and do BGP in a public sort of
fashion though.

You COULD just get a single link to netflix in DEN, but that seems
dumb (or wasteful, or silly... or sub-optimal)... when there's a
switch fabric to exploit in offloading some of your traffic and
reducing hopcount between your customers and their interested content.

> ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP,
> so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated
> link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used.

ISP's peer to avoid costs, not all costs, but some costs. Hopefully
the 'peering arrangement' is more beneficial than just straight
transit between the two parties else you'd just use transit.

-chris

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Julien Goodwin]

On 15/07/14 10:39, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Matthew Petach" 
>>
>>> It's now called "Any2 Denver":
>>>
>>> Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street
>>> address for it anywhere among their literature. :(
>>
>> It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage.
> 
> I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere?

And a DELNI.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

Charles:

Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final
point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT
mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently.
There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I
happen to have rolled my own so as to save money and obtain
greater control. And, that being said, I'm happy to let the thread
die because it's sort of an odd tangent. I see no reason why there should
be any sort of "class distinction" between ISPs who undertake the
messy business of doing BGP (I have the technical knowledge to do
it, but no desire to add more to my plate) and those who choose to
outsource that task and focus their efforts on the challenges of
serving remote downstream customers.

--Brett Glass

At 10:30 PM 7/14/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:


Last comment on the thread.   And the truth will set you free!
Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be
right in the world.As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are
subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old
routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their
business, not yours.  I will not respond further and we can let
this thread finally die.

- charles

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Mark Andrews]

In message <201407150421.waa26...@mail.lariat.net>, Brett Glass writes:
> Mike:
> 
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very 
> awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant 
> babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still 
> doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining 
> this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no 
> different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a 
> large expense that would not produce any additional value for my 
> customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which 
> I absolutely do not want to do.
> 
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some 
> backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) 
> aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a 
> good business move.
> 
> As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs 
> do it; content providers at the edge do not.

Bullshit.  Lots of entities peer.  Hell, I've peered over 9600 baud
leased line slip connections back in 80's. Late 80's but still the
80's.  The only requirement for peering is that you want to
interconnect.

I've also peered over fibre pulled between building on a campus.

In all cases both entities bought and dedicated ports on their
routers.  Routes were exchanged and bits shipped back and forth.

An ISP and a content provider can peer.  Their common job is to ship
bits to the ISP's customers.  They are peers on that role.

> Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It 
> is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none 
> of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of 
> content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in 
> which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same 
> amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, 
> after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused 
> to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken 
> down and we are looking at other solutions.
> 
> --Brett Glass
> 
> At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:
> 
> >So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure 
> >Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be 
> >more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful.
> >
> >Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â 
> >I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not 
> >rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you 
> >seriously if you don't have an ASN?
> >
> >-Mike
> 
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Charles Gucker]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Brett Glass  wrote:
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.

Last comment on the thread.   And the truth will set you free!
Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be
right in the world.As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are
subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old
routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their
business, not yours.  I will not respond further and we can let
this thread finally die.

- charles

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Mike Lyon]

Thanks, I am so happy I now understand what an ASN and BGP are. I had no
clue!

Fuck it, we don't need BGP anywhere. Everyone go static!

Back to the binge drinking now as I started when I first started reading
this thread...

-Mike



On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> Mike:
>
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and
> primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking
> and, after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or
> robustness it should. Obtaining this token number (and a bunch of IP
> addresses which is no different, qualitatively, from what I already have)
> would be a large expense that would not produce any additional value for my
> customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which I
> absolutely do not want to do.
>
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
>
> As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs do it;
> content providers at the edge do not.
>
> Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It is
> trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none of it on
> the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of content more
> efficient. We have been in conversations with it in which we've asked only
> for it to be equitable and pay us the same amount per customer as it pays
> other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, after all, they should be just as
> valuable to it). It has refused to do even that much. That's why talks
> have, for the moment, broken down and we are looking at other solutions.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
> At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:
>
>  So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure
>> Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than
>> happy to statically route to you? Doubtful.
>>
>> Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â I am a
>> smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science.
>> How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an
>> ASN?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>
>


-- 
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.l...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

Mike:

An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very 
awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant 
babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still 
doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining 
this token number (and a bunch of IP addresses which is no 
different, qualitatively, from what I already have) would be a 
large expense that would not produce any additional value for my 
customers but could force me to raise their fees -- something which 
I absolutely do not want to do.


Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some 
backbone routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) 
aren't charging me anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a 
good business move.


As for "peering:" the definition is pretty well established. ISPs 
do it; content providers at the edge do not.


Netflix is fighting a war of semantics and politics with ISPs. It 
is trying to cling to every least penny it receives and spend none 
of it on the resources it consumes or on making its delivery of 
content more efficient. We have been in conversations with it in 
which we've asked only for it to be equitable and pay us the same 
amount per customer as it pays other ISPs, such as Comcast (since, 
after all, they should be just as valuable to it). It has refused 
to do even that much. That's why talks have, for the moment, broken 
down and we are looking at other solutions.


--Brett Glass

At 09:58 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:

So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure 
Netflix (or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be 
more than happy to statically route to you? Doubtful.


Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, Â 
I am a smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not 
rocket science. How are other networks suppose to take you 
seriously if you don't have an ASN?


-Mike

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Charles Gucker]

> But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't
> require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP
> address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any
> kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static
> route would work just fine.

Anybody else feel a vendor t-shirt in the works?

"Who needs BGP to peer, a static route would work just fine!"

Time to get back into the Hot Tub Time Machine and back on point.
*hangs head in shame*

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Paul S.]

On 7/15/2014 午後 12:51, Brett Glass wrote:
But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection 
doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a 
registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or 
a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual 
circuit) and a static route would work just fine.


--Brett Glass

At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:

So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with 
them anyways cuz u have no ASN?




Why would any content network (realistically) be interested in manually 
maintaining your prefixes in their routing table? BGP exists for a 
reason, you really should be using it.


The fact that you don't have an ASN means that automatically creating 
said static routes based on data from some IRRd is likely more trouble 
than it's likely to be worth as well.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
 
>Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform, 

Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger 
ones. And a much
larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start 
with.

>but do recognize that such uniform fees have a disproportionate impact on 
>smaller service providers.

If they were uniform, they would still have a bit of a disproportionate impact, 
but less so. 
If they were on a sliding scale, it might be fair. Remember: Our average profit
is $5 per customer per month, and our customer base is limited by population. 
If I were
in this business just for the business, I'd find a more profitable business, 
but I CARE
about my community and accept a smaller return on my investment to help folks 
get connected.
(This doesn't mean that I'm a charity, but it does mean I'll never get the 
profits or the ROI
of a large, urban provider.)

It would be nice if what I do was also understood and valued by the Internet 
community at large.

--Brett Glass

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[John Osmon]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>
[...]
>
> And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore.
>

I think I want this on a T-shirt.

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Mike Lyon]

So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure Netflix
(or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to
statically route to you? Doubtful.

Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space,  I am a
smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have both. It's not rocket science.
How are other networks suppose to take you seriously if you don't have an
ASN?

-Mike



On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Brett Glass  wrote:

> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly,
> as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)
>
> ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an
> ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a
> dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the
> resources used.
>
> But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't
> require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP
> address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of
> any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static
> route would work just fine.
>
> --Brett Glass
>
>
> At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:
>
>  So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them
>> anyways cuz u have no ASN?
>>
>
>


-- 
Mike Lyon
408-621-4826
mike.l...@gmail.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Brett Glass]

Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, 
misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection 
as one that doesn't require money to change hands.)


ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is 
not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely 
establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid 
paying the ISP for the resources used.


But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection 
doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a 
registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection 
(or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a 
virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine.


--Brett Glass

At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote:

So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with 
them anyways cuz u have no ASN?