On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I'm curious what would happen if an ISP tried blocking P2P apps under that
section, however. Sure, a lot of it's illegal, but not all of it. Could
gross overuse of bandwidth be considered a threat to the network's
reliability, or would the
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Jared Mauch wrote:
The cable industry claims 91% of households passed with two-way cable.
And zero in my area. And you can't start a telco COOP in this
state since the iLEC has encouraged laws to make that not legal. The
two major iLECs in this state
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 01:23:03PM -0500, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Jared Mauch wrote:
The cable industry claims 91% of households passed with two-way cable.
And zero in my area. And you can't start a telco COOP in this
state since the iLEC has encouraged laws
Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Other than references to spam and a couple other minor things, there's a
remarkable lack of discussion of content, either good or bad, in this draft.
If anything, this appears to be the exact opposite of what SBC et al want.
Given all the fuss about
--On November 15, 2005 11:02:18 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
As such, I think we should accept that monopoly and limit the monopoly
zone to that
Right, and this is appropriate. Large investments in infrastructure
should *not* be made if there's already adequate service. Better to
invest in places where there isn't.
Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price
which is two to three times what it
This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very
bad one.
But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100
years
when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are
now
by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time
Hello;
On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be
--On November 16, 2005 4:23:20 AM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
--On November 14, 2005 11:04:46 AM -0500 Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
carrier are becoming the
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True
competition requires the ability
for multiple providers to enter into the market,
including the creation
of new providers to seize opportunities being
ignored by the existing ones.
Technically, lots of other providers CAN enter the
market -
Technically, lots of other providers CAN enter the
market - it's just very expensive to do so. If there
are customers who are not receiving service from one
of the incumbent providers, a third party is certainly
welcome to {dig a trench | build wireless towers | buy
lots of well-trained
The RBOCs
should be split up into a wholesale *only* division (owns the poles,
wires, buildings,switches) and a services *retail* division (owns the
dialtone, bandwidth, customers ). The wholesale division should
sell service to the retail division at a regulated TELRIC based price
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True
competition requires the ability
for multiple providers to enter into the market,
including the creation
of new providers to seize opportunities being
ignored by
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:31:17AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sean Donelan writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market, including the creation of new providers to seize
opportunities being ignored by the
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market,
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be PRACTICAL for multiple providers to enter the
market,
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is more or less what BT has done in the UK by splitting
off all the field engineering into a separate company called
Openreach.
Telia in Sweden did that (Skanova), now that they're privatised (partly)
they're merging that unit back again,
access the Internet, could it be more clear?
No, because there is no legal defintion of the Internet.
While it is probably impossible to define a full routing table at
any particular point in time. It IS possible to evaluate/understand
whether someone is purposely, or accidentally,
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
carrier are becoming the only options. I would not count a 500ms
satellite hop as an option grin.
The cable
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donela
n writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
carrier are becoming the only options. I would not count
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donela
n writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself very
well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or DSL from a single
On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message Pine.GSO.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donela
n writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself
very
well to
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean Donela n writes:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
We are talking about an infrastructure that does not lend itself
very well to market forces. In many places FFTH and/or
DSL
In a message written on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:07:48PM -0500, Sean Donelan
wrote:
Verizon is calling their offering Broadband access. Cablevision calls
their offering Optimum Online. Are those the same as Internet access?
Depends on what they promise. For instance, if I go to Cable
Vision's
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Leo Bicknell wrote:
access the Internet, could it be more clear?
No, because there is no legal defintion of the Internet.
During the early days of the privitization of the Internet, you could not
access www.pizzahut.com (on UUNET) from various universities (on NSFNET)
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Leo Bicknell wrote:
So really the question is not a technical one, or even a business
model one. It's a question of marketing. Don't sell Internet
Access if you can't access the whole internet for what 99 out
of 100 people define as the whole internet. If you want to
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, does a bit cost more when delivered from
china or 'mci' (pick any domestic isp)? I'm asking not about the total
cost, but say the cost from (to pick on sbc) SBC's
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
Is there some licensing body that surveys 99 out of 100 people to
decide if something is the whole internet? That licensing body
would then have the power to order ISPs to carry just those web
that seems like a tough challenge...
sites? If 99 out
In a message written on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 01:32:39PM -0500, Sean Donelan
wrote:
So its just marketing. Some cable companies charge you $5 a month
more for HSIA if you don't buy the cable company's VOIP service and
$10 more if you don't buy the cable company's video service. As long
as
On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Are you suggesting a return to cost-based regulation? At one time
airline
prices were regulated based on air mile distance.
No, I'm not, actually I think that the answer to my question was: All
bits cost the same to push inside
On Nov 12, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Are you suggesting a return to cost-based regulation? At one
time airline
prices were regulated based on air mile distance.
No, I'm not, actually I think that the answer to my
On 13 Nov 2005 00:56 UTC, Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The sad thing is, these are not things with a precise definition.
You can invision defining Long Distance before there were cell
phones, and it might not have included them. Of course, I think
if you stop anyone on the street
On Nov 12, 2005, at 8:12 PM, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On Nov 12, 2005, at 8:03 PM, Tom Vest wrote:
On Nov 12, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Are you suggesting a return to cost-based regulation? At one
time airline
prices were regulated based on air mile distance.
No,
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Leo Bicknell wrote:
No, this is all pricing. You can sell Internet Access for $10,
or $20, or $200 for all I care. It's still Internet Access. You
can discount my Internet Access by 50% if I also buy a hotdog
from you for all I care. Doesn't change what you're
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
good question, I think all of the examples though have on thing in common:
all the 'discount' is on 'local' traffic (local to the network), the cost
differential is applied to 'non-local' traffic. This sort of goes to my
point that inside a
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Yep. The evil empires have a hundred years of experience dealing with
regulation. If the regulators define what the Internet is or isn't,
instead of the marketplace, I don't know if people would
Be careful Owen - i think you may be falling into a libertarian trap
- worrisome because I respect highly things i have seen you write in
past.
Think about what you are saying: Something to consider about this
proposed regulation... It is actually
in many ways proposed deregulation
On Nov 10, 2005, at 5:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 9, 2005 10:43:40 AM EST
Here's the latest draft of the Internet
regulation bill, dated November 3rd. Note that, like earlier
versions, it subjects all ISPs and
November, 2005 01:44
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: [Latest draft of Internet regulation bill]
Since port 80 and port 25 are lawful services everyone offering
broadband will have to drop filters and provide full routing! Can
you hear me now? Why yes, port 80 and port 25 are open, of course I
--- Blaine Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I suspect the section regarding nondiscriminatory access could have
been worded better. Half the text is repeated. Are they paid by
the word you think?
I believe this part is how utilities (ele, gas, tel(traditional),
sewage, etc) who
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Actually, thinking about this, does a bit cost more when delivered from
china or 'mci' (pick any domestic isp)? I'm asking not about the total
cost, but say the cost from (to pick on sbc) SBC's front door to the
consumer's front door ? Does a
In a message written on Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 05:26:59PM -0500, Sean Donelan
wrote:
MCI Friends Family charged different rates for phone calls depending
[snip]
rate? Level 3 charges different rates for on-net versus off-net
It's not that any of these are bad, but it's that the consumer must
be
On Nov 10, 2005, at 5:56 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brett Glass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 9, 2005 10:43:40 AM EST
Here's the latest draft of the Internet
regulation bill, dated November 3rd. Note that, like earlier
versions, it subjects all ISPs and
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
you are an evil man :)
Why does this remind me of a Simpson's
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
I have to admit I like this part... It somewhat addresses my concerns
about the monopolies that Chris Morrow and Sean Donelan are
perpetrating on us (just kidding guys...).
you are an evil man :)
My fingers are tented... can you see?
On Nov 10, 2005, at 10:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
My fingers are tented... can you see?
indeed I can... the evil empire installed a camera in your monitor.
quick
read: http://tinyurl.com/89v8h
I personally feature The Fez on Fridays. The chix dig it.
The odd thing is that
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
So, there was a time when everyone said 'good grief, what would
anyone do with 1.5mbps', and where in turn engineered bitrates ended
up being several orders of magnitude lower. In fact, we all were
worried what would happen to our POPs and
On Nov 10, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
So, there was a time when everyone said 'good grief, what would
anyone do with 1.5mbps', and where in turn engineered bitrates ended
up being several orders of magnitude lower. In fact,
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On Nov 10, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
So, there was a time when everyone said 'good grief, what would
anyone do with 1.5mbps', and where in turn engineered bitrates ended
On Nov 10, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
most likely... and video-on-demand sorts of things seem like the next
problem child for bandwidth on the local link. (atleast in the
short term)
That's what I believe, too. And along with that, we have people
hungry for
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it
was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth
but price alone.
In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating the necessity of usage based pricing
when he
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
oops ;) my point wasn't that bandwidth wasn't necessary over X speed, it
was that the main motivator for consumer purchase was no long bandwidth
but price alone.
In 1997, Vint Cerf was advocating
Actually, having now read the entire proposed law, I think it is
remarkably reasonable compared to most of what Congress has done
lately.
It sets the regulatory threshold for ISPs and VOIP providers at
a very low level. It preempts most of the local regulations.
It provides for the possibility
Something to consider about this proposed regulation... It is actually
in many ways proposed deregulation. This bill removes more authority
from the FCC and state and local governments than it grants. It provides
a very minimal framework of regulation, then, except for taxation and
a couple of
58 matches
Mail list logo
