Back in the dawn of the public internet this same sort of thing was
argued fiercely on lists like com-priv (commercialization and
privatization of the internet.)
It was usually around flat rate vs bandwidth charging.
My take was that bandwidth pricing lets you buy as much pipe as you
might ever
And with working QoS and DSCP tagging flat rate works just fine.
Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> Flat rate schemes have been spreading over the kicking and
> screaming bodies of telecom executives (bodies that are
> very much alive because of all the feasting on the profits
> produced by flat rates).
Rod Beck wrote:
>
> > The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> > consume each month or the bytes generated by different
> > applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
> > require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
>
> "Actually, it sounds a lot like the Ele
Flat rate schemes have been spreading over the kicking and
screaming bodies of telecom executives (bodies that are
very much alive because of all the feasting on the profits
produced by flat rates). It is truly amazing how telecom
has consistently fought flat rates for over a century
(a couple of
and ignore it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Geo.
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:11 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
> > Seems to me a programmer setting a default sc
> > Seems to me a programmer setting a default schedule in an
> application is
> > far simpler than many of the other suggestions I've seen for solving
> > this problem.
>
> End users do not have any interest in saving ISP upstream
> bandwidth,
they also have no interest in learning so setting de
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Geo. wrote:
Seems to me a programmer setting a default schedule in an application is
far simpler than many of the other suggestions I've seen for solving
this problem.
End users do not have any interest in saving ISP upstream bandwidth, their
interest is to get as much
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
> A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
> serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
> high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small number of
> end users.
That's not going to work in the long
> Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the UK for
> electricity. These are typically used by low income people who have less
> education than the average population. And yet they can understand the
> concept of saving money by using more electricity at night.
I can't comm
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> consume each month or the bytes generated by different
> applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
> require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
"Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the
MAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:34 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> consume each month or the bytes generated by different
On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield
should
be the easiest,
On Oct 25, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small numbe
On 25-okt-2007, at 3:33, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger
suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has
anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel
unscathed
through the
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small number of
end users.
That's not going to work in the long run.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 24-okt-2007, at 16:44, Rod Beck wrote:
>
>> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each
>> month or the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes
>> being advocated in this discussion require that the end users be
>> Layer 3
On 24-okt-2007, at 16:44, Rod Beck wrote:
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume
each month or the bytes generated by different applications. The
schemes being advocated in this discussion require that the end
users be Layer 3 engineers.
Users more or less know w
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:33:35 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger
> suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has
> anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel unscathed
> through the public Interne
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> consume each month or the bytes generated by different
> applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
> require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Again, is there no alternative between such extremely low data caps on
> everyone and extreme usage by a a few?
Sure, I'll sell you a 1:1 pipe that you can use 100%. AUD $400 a megabit.
No worries. :)
Adrian
On Oct 24, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
The problem isn't a particular type of traffic in isolation, its
usually the impact of one network user's traffic on all the other
network user's traffic sharing the same network.
Network Quotas for Individuals - A better answer to the P
> Exactly. And because they installed fiber, the FCC has ruled that they
> do not have to provide unbundled network elements to competitors.
It's this last bit that seems to be leading to lots of complaints, and
it's the earlier pricing of "unbundled network elements" at or above the
cost of c
The problem isn't a particular type of traffic in isolation, its usually
the impact of one network user's traffic on all the other network user's
traffic sharing the same network.
Network Quotas for Individuals - A better answer to the P2P bandwidth
problem?
http://www.greatplains.net/rese
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
sho
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:44:53 BST, Rod Beck said:
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each
> month or the bytes generated by different applications.
Note that in many/most cases, the person signing the agreement and paying
the bill (the parental units) are not the ones
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
You'd be surprised; users in the Australian market have had to get
used to knowing how much bandwidth they use.
People are adaptable. Get used to it. :)
Likewise, people seem to complain about anything. Even Australians seem
to like to complain. Get
people manage to count stuff they use when they pay for it. minutes(cell),
kwh(electricity), gallons(gas), etc.
people have managed to figure out cell phone plans where they get N minutes
included and then pay extra over that.
the only users this would affect are those that upload a lot, because
ago
had only 3Mb/s for example.
> Frank
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> David Andersen
> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:21 PM
> To: Leo Bicknell
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Internet access in Japan (was Re
That misses the point. They are probably being forced to adapt by a monopoly or
a quasi-monopoly or by the fact that transport into Australia is extremely
expensive. The situation outside of Australia is quite different. A DS3 from
Sydney to LA is worth about 10 DS3s NYC/London.
It is not impo
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
> That misses the point. They are probably being forced to adapt by a monopoly
> or a quasi-monopoly or by the fact that transport into Australia is extremely
> expensive. The situation outside of Australia is quite different. A DS3 from
> Sydney to LA is w
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each month or
> the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes being advocated in
> this discussion require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
You'd be surprised; users in
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
> > be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
> > should be eager to offer it; but
The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each month or
the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes being advocated in
this discussion require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
That might dramatically shrink you 'addressable market', not to mention yo
Monday, October 22, 2007 9:21 PM
To: Leo Bicknell
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Internet access in Japan (was Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly
bite on broadband nets)
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Having now seen the cable issue described in technical detail over
> a
mention caps
or upstream limitations or P2P control because that would be bad for
marketing.
Frank
From: Dorn Hetzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 8:12 AM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite
reco
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
How about a system where I tell my customers that for a given plan X at
price Y they get U bytes of "high priority" upload per month (or day or
whatever) and after that all thei
> While probably more "good" than "bad", it is my understanding that when
> Verizon (and others) provide FTTH (fiber to the home) they "cut" or
> physically disconnect all other connections to that residence. so much
> for any "choice"...
At least around here, if you tell the installer you
How about a system where I tell my customers that for a given plan X at
price Y they get U bytes of "high priority" upload per month (or day or
whatever) and after that all their traffic is low priority until the next
cycle starts.
Now here's the fun part. They can mark the priority on the packet
In the future, people are not going to believe that we permitted this
to happen.
Coming soon: your plumbing will be disconnected. But never fear:
an Evian vending machine will delivered to every deserving household...
TV
On Oct 24, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Larry Smith wrote:
On Wednesday 24 Octo
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
> > be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
> > should be eager to offer it; bu
> I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement QoS
> support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues: a default
> queue, which handled regular internet traffic but squashed P2P, and then a
> separate queue that allowed P2P to flow uninhibited for an extra $5/mo
> I did consulting work for NTT in 2001 and 2002 and visited their Tokyo =
> headquarters twice. NTT has two ILEC divisions, NTT East and NTT West. =
> The ILEC management told me in conversations that there was no money in =
> fiber-to-the-home; the entire rollout was due to government pressure a
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
> be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
> should be eager to offer it; but don't.
Well, Verizon seems to be making heavy bets on repl
On Tue, October 23, 2007 5:17 pm, Jack Bates wrote:
> Sorry, I am the incumbent. ;) I was just thinking of the copper necessary
> to do such a task on a massive scale. It's definitely not in the ground
> or on a pole at this point in time. One reason DSL was so desireable for
> many small ILECs
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo
Bicknell
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 11:05 AM
To: Joe Provo
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
In a message written on Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:34:00AM -0400, Joe Provo
wrote:
> While I expect end
Tim Franklin wrote:
Doing (or getting the incumbent to do, where the last mile is a monopoly)
a little bit more of what you already do seems to be an awful lot easier
than doing something completely different. Certainly in the (admittedly
all European) countries where I've seen it done, getting
In a message written on Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:34:00AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> While I expect end-users to miss the boat that providers use stat-mux
> calculations to build and price their networks, I'm floored to see the
> sentiment on NANOG. No edge provider of geographic scope/scale will
>
On Tue, October 23, 2007 4:06 pm, Jack Bates wrote:
> Errr, 8 pairs per customer? Even 4 is a step backwards. If we're going to
> do construction at that level, might as well drop in fiber. We're still
> enjoying the fact that ADSL runs on 1/2 a pair while the customer's
> phone service is out.
Tim Franklin wrote:
For the UK (and NL), on the tech side we're seeing some success with EFM
on copper, in this particular case on an Actelis platform. It's a new
unit in the CO, from 1-8 pairs from the CO to the customer premises, up to
a total bandwidth across all pairs of 40Mb/s in each dire
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:13:42AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> According to
> http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
> Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This
> means that they're trying to manage their upstream connect
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20:49PM -0400,
David Andersen wrote:
The Washington Post article claims that:
[snip]
b) Fresh new wire installed after WWII
I have to wonder
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20:49PM -0400, David Andersen
wrote:
> The Washington Post article claims that:
[snip]
>
> b) Fresh new wire installed after WWII
>
I have to wonder what percentage of the population is using phone
lines installed before WWII?
I live in a suburb
On Tue, October 23, 2007 2:55 am, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 3) Is there any chance US providers could offer similar technologies at
> similar prices, or are there significant differences (regulation,
> distance etc) that prevent it from being viable?
For the UK (and NL), on the tech side we're seein
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> I believe the bittorrent client Azureus actually does prioritize based on
> subnet, picking local subnet hosts first (such as when used in a large NAT'd
> environment).
>
> -brandon
That hasn't been my experience with some of the statistics coming
Yup, matches my experience (designing/deploying AOL's swan song JP
network infrastructure) during the same period.
The "ILECs" were artifacts of the Japanese regulators' 1997 effort to
relieve the last mile facilities death grip on services, ala the
(1984) US MFJ / AT&T breakup. The new c.
I did consulting work for NTT in 2001 and 2002 and visited their Tokyo
headquarters twice. NTT has two ILEC divisions, NTT East and NTT West. The ILEC
management told me in conversations that there was no money in
fiber-to-the-home; the entire rollout was due to government pressure and was
well
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now if any of you guys have a lead on an affordable way to get 225 40GigE's
from here to someplace that can *take* 225 40Gig-E's... ;)
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0611.pdf
It does not cost all that much, relatively, to upgrade a net
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 19:20, David Andersen wrote:
Followed by a recent explosion in fiber-to-the-home buildout by NTT.
"About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines -- roughly nine
times the number in the United States." -- particular
On Monday 22 October 2007 19:20, David Andersen wrote:
> Followed by a recent explosion in fiber-to-the-home buildout by NTT.
> "About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines -- roughly nine
> times the number in the United States." -- particularly impressive
> when you count that in per
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:35:21 EDT, Sean Donelan said:
> This doesn't explain why many universities, most with active, symmetric
> ethernet switches in residential dorms, have been deploying packet shaping
> technology for even longer than the cable companies. If the answer was
> as simple as upgra
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
Ok, maybe the greedy commercial folks screwed up and deserve what they
got; but why are the nobel non-profit universities having the same
problems?
Because if you look at a residential population with ADSL2+ and 10/10 or
100/100 respectively, the upl
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> > What hurt these access providers, particularly those in the
> >cable market, was a set of failed assumptions. The Internet became a
> >commodity, driven by this web thing. As a result, standards lik
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
What hurt these access providers, particularly those in the
cable market, was a set of failed assumptions. The Internet became a
commodity, driven by this web thing. As a result, standards like DOCSIS
developed, and bandwidth was allocated, fr
Once upon a time, David Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> But no - I was as happy as everyone else when the CLECs emerged and
> provided PRI service at 1/3rd the rate of the ILECs
Not only was that CLEC service concetrated in higher-density areas, the
PRI prices were often not based in reali
On Oct 22, 2007, at 11:02 PM, Jeff Shultz wrote:
David Andersen wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/
AR2007082801990.html
Followed by a recent explosion in fiber-to-the-home buildout by
NTT. "About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines --
rough
According to
http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This
means that they're trying to manage their upstream connections, not the
local loop.
For Comcast's own position, see
http://bits.blogs.ny
David Andersen wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801990.html
Followed by a recent explosion in fiber-to-the-home buildout by NTT.
"About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines -- roughly nine times
the number in the United States." -- part
to the
U.S. population.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leo
Bicknell
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 8:55 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 200
On Oct 22, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having now seen the cable issue described in technical detail over
and over, I have a question.
At the most recent Nanog several people talked about 100Mbps symmetric
access in Japan for $40 US.
This leads me to two questions:
1) Is that accura
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 08:24:17PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The reality is that copper-based internet access technologies: dial-up, DSL,
> and cable modems have made the design-based trade off that there is
> substantially more downstream than upstream. With North American
>
ay, October 22, 2007 7:16 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
>>> On 10/22/2007 at 3:02 PM, "Frank Bulk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement
> QoS supp
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 05:16:08PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote:
> It seems to me is what hurts the ISPs is the accompanying upload
> streams, not the download (or at least the ISP feels the same
> download pain no matter what technology their end user uses to get
> the data[0]). Throwing more bandwid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Crist Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...] How
>many P2P protocols are already blocking/shaping evasive?
The Storm botnet? :-)
- - ferg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017)
wj8DBQFHHUavq1pz9mNUZTMRAoINAJ
> ... Why not suck up and go with the
> economic solution? Seems like the easy thing is for the ISPs to come
> clean and admit their "unlimited" service is not and put in upload
> caps and charge for overages.
Who will be the first? If there *is* competition in the
marketplace, the cable company
>>> On 10/22/2007 at 3:02 PM, "Frank Bulk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement
QoS
> support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues: a
default
> queue, which handled regular internet traffic but squashed P2P, and
then a
>
Joel
Jaeggli
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Steven M. Bellovin
Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> This result is unsurprising and not controversial. TCP achieves
> fairness *among flo
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:31:09 -0700
Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > This result is unsurprising and not controversial. TCP achieves
> > fairness *among flows* because virtually all clients back off in
> > response to packet drops. BitTorrent, though,
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> This result is unsurprising and not controversial. TCP achieves
> fairness *among flows* because virtually all clients back off in
> response to packet drops. BitTorrent, though, uses many flows per
> request; furthermore, since its flows are much longer-lived than w
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6332098.html
>
>The short answer: Badly. Based on the research, conducted by Terry
> Shaw, of CableLabs, and Jim Martin, a computer science professor at
> Clemson Un
Note that this is from 2006. Do you have a link to the actual paper, by
Terry Shaw, of CableLabs, and Jim Martin of Clemson ?
Regards
Marshall
On Oct 21, 2007, at 1:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6332098.html
The short answer: Badly. Based on the researc
80 matches
Mail list logo
