Andy
Davidson
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 8:38 PM
To: Roland Dobbins
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On 13 Mar 2007, at 20:31, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
>> A universal service
On 13 Mar 2007, at 20:31, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the
funds going to subsidize rural areas.
This is already done in the U.S., to no discernible effect.
That isn't *quite* the
ursday, March 15, 2007 9:45 AM
> To: Jamie Bowden; NANOG list
> Subject: RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell
> big users (fwd)
>
> Jamie:
>
> Who is your ILEC? If you look at Iowa, which has move than
> 150 independent
> telephone companies, the b
: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; NANOG list
Subject: RE: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
s/our exchanges/our urban exchanges/
And even then, not so much. I have cable or nothing, and I live in
Fairfax Co. 41k line feet from my house to the
-Original Message-
> From: Frank Bulk
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:50 AM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell
> big users (fwd)
>
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
> > A universal
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
>> USF has made it possible for us to
>> serve DSL to almost every customer in our exchanges.
>
>I'm glad to hear it - the reports of how that fund is (un)used are
>> USF has made it possible for us to
>> serve DSL to almost every customer in our exchanges.
>
>I'm glad to hear it - the reports of how that fund is (un)used are
>almost overwhelmingly negative, I'm glad some folks, somewhere are
>benefiting from it.
There's a lot not to like about USF, not
On Mar 14, 2007, at 8:23 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
USF has made it possible for us to
serve DSL to almost every customer in our exchanges.
I'm glad to hear it - the reports of how that fund is (un)used are
almost overwhelmingly negative, I'm glad some folks, somewhere are
benefiting from it.
Could you please clarify that comment? USF has made it possible for us to
serve DSL to almost every customer in our exchanges.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:50 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:22 AM, Bora Akyol wrote:
Unfortunately, neither the telcos nor the cable companies quite get
this. They are stuck to their "channels" and everything is priced in
terms of channels.
To be fair, part of this onus is on the content developers themselves
- after all, it'
bject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell
> big users (fwd)
>
>
> On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > the end user?
> >
> > BitTorrent. ;>
>
>The system I looked at had fiber along the high voltage lines anyway,
>to get enough bandwidth to the neighborhood - i.e., fiber to the
>neighborhood, plus equipment there to put the data onto the copper.
>After that, each transformer requires a shunt. Therefore, each
>transformer require
>> A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the
>> funds going to subsidize rural areas.
>
>This is already done in the U.S., to no discernible effect.
I dunno. My rural ILEC which is up to its armpits in USF money, sells
me a T1 for $190/mo plus tax. (Plus what their ca
Harrowell
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:39 AM
To: Daniel Senie
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On 3/13/07, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How do longer-range wireless technologies like WiMAX
&g
TECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:05 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> sell you 100/24 vdsl2 for around 80euro a month.
100/10 over CAT5 ethernet (and als
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:45 AM
To: Joe Abley
Cc: Todd Vierling; Roland Dobbins; NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:15:30 EDT, Joe
Broadband-over-powerlines, like its cousin ethernet-over-domestic
wiring, is one of those things that gets discovered every three years,
hyped, oohed and aahed over, then disappears. Reason: it's a solution
looking for a problem, for the reasons given above. Why not, rather
than try to kludge dat
On Mar 14, 2007, at 3:02 AM, David Lesher wrote:
{re: BPL will bring competition...}
I am totally baffled by all the hype over BPL.
What is true is the utilities would wet their pants over having
same. Not for offering Internet access, but so they could read
every electric meter in realtim
> I do admit that I haven't been keeping up on BPL technology lately, as
> I am not in [and know only one person living in] an area where power
> lines are the only cabled connection to the world. My point was more
> that there are areas where it's simply impractical to put out many of
> the toda
On 3/14/07, Mike Hammett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Current wireless technologies have no problem with the rural aspect, just
the hills and foliage. Get on a tall enough tower in a remote enough area,
you can have quite a range on your wireless coverage. I'm not sure of the
cost of a cell tow
On 3/13/07, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do longer-range wireless technologies like WiMAX
>potentially impact the equation?
If cell phone companies have not covered an area, what makes you
think WiMAX is a magic solution? How well does WiMAX work to cover
hilly, forested, ru
On Mar 13, 2007, at 11:19 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
A universal service charge could be applied to all bills, with the
funds going to subsidize rural areas.
This is already done in the U.S., to no discernible effect.
---
Rol
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
sell you 100/24 vdsl2 for around 80euro a month.
100/10 over CAT5 ethernet (and also 100/100) is available here in Sweden
for around $35+tax in quite a lot of places. Weirdly enough it's more
commonly available in places where the real estate owner h
{re: BPL will bring competition...}
I am totally baffled by all the hype over BPL.
What is true is the utilities would wet their pants over having
same. Not for offering Internet access, but so they could read
every electric meter in realtime, and do load-shedding as well.
What they SEEM to be
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:15:30 EDT, Joe Abley said:
> This conversation has suddenly become very weird. I suggest you go
> and spend a year on Niue before you decide to make claims that
> anywhere in the US is as remote (and, for the record, there are no
> cables which land in Niue, fat or othe
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
...
I would like to blame the idiots that decided that of the signal range
to be used on copper for dsl, only a certain amount would be dedicated
to upload instead of negotiating. What on earth do I want to do with
24Mb down and 1Mb up? Can't I have 12 and
On 13-Mar-2007, at 18:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping this in perspective, the CIA Factbook says that Niue had a
population
of 2,166 in July 2006, an area of 100 square miles (1.5 times the
size of Wash DC),
and a highest elevation of a whole whopping 250 feet.
They used to have a b
--
> > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > >
> > > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > > the end user?
> >
> > For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that.
>
>> for the service from the
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > >
> > > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > > the end user?
> >
> > For us in
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > the end user?
>
> For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that.
for the service from the provider
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > the end user?
>
>
> Getting in late here...
>
> For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive t
P use on
3 bands is under $10k.
--Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Daniel Senie
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
At 01:33 PM 3/13
PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd
Vierling
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:15 PM
To: Roland Dobbins
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users (fwd)
On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are other
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > the end user?
Getting in late here...
For us in Hawaii IPTV will drive that.
scott
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:50:43 EDT, Joe Abley said:
> However, just because you're remote doesn't mean that there aren't
> options in the last mile, so long as you're prepared to do something
> rather than just complain about others not doing it. The island of
> Niue in the South Pacific has h
On 3/13/07, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You've mentioned powerline a few times. Care to expand on the
business case for BPL?
I do admit that I haven't been keeping up on BPL technology lately, as
I am not in [and know only one person living in] an area where power
lines are the onl
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> we're worrying about FTTH when some of the largest carriers are still not
> capable of delivering ethernet handoffs in some of those same top 30 cities.
so... 'ethernet handoff' to me is 'just another access media'. I had asked
at one point in time
Todd Vierling wrote:
The reality is probably that the service is available, but the slow
motion of *infrastructure* network upgrades (where the CPE might not
even need a change in some cases) is holding back the rest of the
works.
Network upgrades tend to not be cheap, and I doubt the vendor
> And on-demand DVR-type things which I believe will grow in
> popularity. Of course, most of those are overlays which the SPs
> themselves don't offer; when they wish to do so, it'll become an
> issue, IMHO.
Which, by the way, is hitting main stream.
Amazon Unbox. http://www.amazon.com/b/?&nod
At 02:15 PM 3/13/2007, Todd Vierling wrote:
On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are other technologies better
> suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable,
> or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas
> are upgrad
On 13-Mar-2007, at 14:15, Todd Vierling wrote:
Depends on how rural the area is. Some parts of the US have
problematic terrain and *very* sparse population; there, the cost
would far outweigh the subscriber uptake. Should someone want
bandwidth in such an area, powerline or satellite are pro
Sean Donelan wrote:
> Several US Providers are very happy to sell 1Gbps and even 10Gbps to
> anyone in major (i.e. NFL/top 30) cities, but not at $14.95/month.
Sure, as long as you're willing to fork over the cash for CPE capable of
handling OC-XX linecards. The service cost is hardly the onl
On 3/13/07, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/13/07, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If many of US consumers were already buying the biggest pipe and were
> willing to pay even more for even higher speeds; would we be having
> this discussion? Or is the reality that US con
On 3/13/07, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If many of US consumers were already buying the biggest pipe and were
willing to pay even more for even higher speeds; would we be having
this discussion? Or is the reality that US consumers are buying lower
priced services even when bigger se
At 01:33 PM 3/13/2007, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
As with the deployment of telephone service a century ago, the
ubiquitious availability of broadband service will require
government involvement in the form of fees on some and subsidies
for other
On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are other technologies better
> suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable,
> or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas
> are upgraded.
Or something like WiMAX?
Depends on how
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Todd Vierling wrote:
Critical mass is approaching. There's only so long that North
American consumers can be held back from bandwidth-hogging
applications and downloads while parts of the world have long since
upgraded to 10Mbit/s bidirectional (and beyond) consumer-grade a
Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
>> As with the deployment of telephone service a century ago, the
>> ubiquitious availability of broadband service will require government
>> involvement in the form of fees on some and subsidies for others
>> (migh
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:11 AM, Todd Vierling wrote:
There are other technologies better
suited to rural deployment, such as satellite, powerline, some cable,
or even re-use of the previous generation's ADSL gear once metro areas
are upgraded.
Or something like WiMAX?
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
As with the deployment of telephone service a century ago, the
ubiquitious availability of broadband service will require
government involvement in the form of fees on some and subsidies
for others (might be a good use for the funds Massac
On Mar 13, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Matthew F. Ringel wrote:
DSL[1] and DOCSIS require active cooperation from the carrier. Ergo,
tech advancement in the carrier-assisted data transport arena is
dependent on the carrier cooperating.
Are infrastructure build-out costs any less of an issue for cons
On 3/13/07, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In US metropolitan areas we are seeing a lot more fiber to the home.
That depends highly on your location. Additionally, many FTTH
deployments (*cough*some parts of a company with former ticker symbol
"T"*wheeze*) are artificially rate limited
At 12:15 PM 3/13/2007, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Someone please tell me there's a valid reason
> why the
> download range couldn't be variable and negotiated
There are several valid reasons, but with newer modulations more
bandwidth upstream is more and more of a reality. Now if we could
just tu
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 12:34:12PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:45:07 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> > If there were then I bet $TELCO || $CABLECO would drop prices and speed up
> > links... since there isn't I think we're all lucky we're not still using a
> > 110baud
Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would like to blame the idiots that decided that of the signal range
to be used on copper for dsl, only a certain amount would be
dedicated to upload instead of negotiating. What on earth do I
want to do with 24Mb down and 1Mb up? Can't I have 12 an
On 3/13/07, Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> the end user?
BitTorrent. ;>
Smiley highly appropriate there. The cultural diversity of the
Internet-using population simply isn't capable of making BT a
practical applic
On 13-Mar-2007, at 12:34, Mills, Charles wrote:
Probably sooner in this case. Verizon is already rolling out fiber to
the home (FIOS) in the Pittsburgh area. Massive truck rolls...lots of
glass being strung.
Subsidising a loss-leading access project with revenue from copper-
based service
Jack Bates wrote:
>
> Jeff Shultz wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 768 ain't broadband. Buy Cisco, Alcatel, and Akamai stock!
>>>
> If you don't like it, you can always return to dialup.
>
>> It certainly is - just ask the CALEA folks and as for who is
>> pushing the bandw
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Joe Abley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:11 PM
To: Roland Dobbins
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell big users
(fwd)
Building high-capacity access to the home is
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
[...]
> "Ideally" that's how it's supposed to work, but isn't how it works as of
> present-day. Speaking solely about the BitTorrent protocol, upstream does
> not affect downstream speed. In fact, there's a BitTorrent client out
> th
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 15:45:07 -, "Chris L. Morrow" said:
> If there were then I bet $TELCO || $CABLECO would drop prices and speed up
> links... since there isn't I think we're all lucky we're not still using a
> 110baud coupler modem :)
OK, what drove the improvement from the 110 baud backwate
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:45:07PM +, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > > the end user?
> >
> > BitTorrent.
On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:11 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
So long as most torrent clients are used to share content
illicitly, that doesn't sound like much of a business driver for
the DSL/CATV ISP. And so long as the average user doesn't have an
alternative provider which gives better torrent sharin
> Someone please tell me there's a valid reason
> why the
> download range couldn't be variable and negotiated
There are several valid reasons, but with newer modulations more
bandwidth upstream is more and more of a reality. Now if we could
just turn off ISDN and POTS (and other random crazy P
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:52:57PM +, Peter Corlett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:27:04AM -0700, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> [...]
> >> what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to the end
> >> user?
> > BitTorrent
On 13-Mar-2007, at 11:27, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
the end user?
BitTorrent.
So long as most torrent clients are used to share content illicitly,
that doesn't sound like muc
Jeff Shultz wrote:
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
768 ain't broadband. Buy Cisco, Alcatel, and Akamai stock!
If you don't like it, you can always return to dialup.
It certainly is - just ask the CALEA folks and as for who is pushing
the bandwidth curve, for the most part it seems to be g
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 08:27:04AM -0700, Roland Dobbins wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
[...]
>> what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to the end
>> user?
> BitTorrent.
The download speed is however limited by the upload speed of the peers,
whi
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> > what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
> > the end user?
>
> BitTorrent.
which uses all available bandwidth on the user link, and can/does play
nicely with other
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
On 3/13/07, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Critical mass is approaching. There's only so long that North
American consumers can be held back from bandwidth-hogging
applications and downloads while parts of the world have long since
upgraded to 10Mbit/s bi
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:17 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
what business drivers are there to put more bits on the wire to
the end user?
BitTorrent.
;>
And on-demand DVR-type things which I believe will grow in
popularity. Of course, most of those are overlays which the SPs
themselves don't
On 3/13/07, Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Critical mass is approaching. There's only so long that North
American consumers can be held back from bandwidth-hogging
applications and downloads while parts of the world have long since
upgraded to 10Mbit/s bidirectional (and beyond) cons
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Todd Vierling wrote:
>
> Both cable and DSL providers are about to have a very loud wake-up
> call, and from here, I see absolutely zero uptake of newer technology
> and infrastructure to offset the inevitable.
not that I'm arguing (really) but what wakeup call? where is th
On 3/13/07, Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On funsec we have had a discussion on broadband providers and bandwidth
limitations, pretty much what we rehearsed here.
Critical mass is approaching. There's only so long that North
American consumers can be held back from bandwidth-hogging
a
On funsec we have had a discussion on broadband providers and bandwidth
limitations, pretty much what we rehearsed here.
Michael brought up an interesting case from a decade ago, which speaks of
some litigation issues we did not discuss. It is also
interesting to hear his view as a client on "bee
75 matches
Mail list logo
