On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Not to drag this too far off topic, but have serious studies been done
looking at moving switching fabric closer to the DSLAMs (versus doing
everything PPPoE)? I know this sort of goes opposite of how ILECs are
setup to dish out DSL, but as more t
On 10/12/07, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> >
> > If it's multicast TV I don't see the problem, it doesn't increase your
> > backbone traffic linearly with the number of people doing it.
>
> However if you have UK-style ADSL ppp backhaul
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> If it's multicast TV I don't see the problem, it doesn't increase your
> backbone traffic linearly with the number of people doing it.
However if you have UK-style ADSL ppp backhaul then multicast doesn't
help.
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PRO
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Many people leave the TV on all the time, at least while they are home.
On the Internet broadcasting side, we (AmericaFree.TV) have some viewers
that do the same - one has racked up a cumulative 109 _days_ of viewing
so far this year. (109 days in
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> One of the biggest challenges for the Internet has got to be the
> >> steadily
> >> increasing storage market, combined with the continued development of
> >> small, portable processors for ev
On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
One of the biggest challenges for the Internet has got to be the
steadily
increasing storage market, combined with the continued development of
small, portable processors for every application, me
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
One of the biggest challenges for the Internet has got to be the steadily
increasing storage market, combined with the continued development of
small, portable processors for every application, meaning that there's
been an explosion of computing devices.
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:36:12 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Odlyzko) wrote:
>
> As a point of information, Australia is one of the few places where
> the government collects Internet traffic statistics (which are hopefully
> trustworthy). Pointer is at
>
>http://www.dtc.
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> > It's arrogant to fix brokenness? Because I'm certainly there. In my
> > experience, if you don't bother to address problems, they're very likely
> > to remain, especially when money is involved on the opposite side.
>
> There's a big difference between
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
It's arrogant to fix brokenness? Because I'm certainly there. In my
experience, if you don't bother to address problems, they're very likely
to remain, especially when money is involved on the opposite side.
There's a big difference between fixing broken
> $quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ;
> >
> > > >That's approximately correct. The true answer to the thought experiment
> > > >is "address those problems, don't continue to blindly pay those costs and
> > > >complain about how unique your problems are." Because the problems are
> > > >neither uniqu
$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ;
>
> > >That's approximately correct. The true answer to the thought experiment
> > >is "address those problems, don't continue to blindly pay those costs and
> > >complain about how unique your problems are." Because the problems are
> > >neither unique nor new -
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > And P2P is the main way to reduce the overall load that video places
> > on the Internet.
>
> We could have used IP Multicast, but nobody on the consumer side wanted
> to carry state instead of packets.
Multicast works whe
> >That's approximately correct. The true answer to the thought experiment
> >is "address those problems, don't continue to blindly pay those costs and
> >complain about how unique your problems are." Because the problems are
> >neither unique nor new - merely ingrained. People have solved them
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Andy Johnson wrote:
In my experience, the support cost of DSL is significantly cheaper than
dial-up in terms of helpdesk calls. DSL/Cable/FiOS is typically a plug and
play, where as dialup can be quite a bit more troublesome, involving more
tech time in the long run.
I occ
From: "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Verizon, it's particularly sad, charges $19.95/month for dialup
> that'll also tie up a POTS line, where it'll offer the lowest DSL
> speeds at $14.95. And Verizon "cherry picks" the places where it
> offers DSL (and moreso for FiOS) so the affluent towns
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> With respect to the AU thing, it would be interesting to know whether or
> not the quotas in AU have acted to limit the popularity of services such
> as YouTube (my guess would be an emphatic yes), as I see YouTube as being
> a precursor to video things-
At 09:50 AM 10/8/2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote:
> > Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 -
> > $50 per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect
> > internet industry?
>
> I would fix the problem, ie get more co
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote:
> > Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 -
> > $50 per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect
> > internet industry?
>
> I would fix the problem, ie get more competition into these two areas
> where t
As a point of information, Australia is one of the few places where
the government collects Internet traffic statistics (which are hopefully
trustworthy). Pointer is at
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints/govstats.html
(which also has a pointer to Hong Kong reports). If one looks at the
Australian
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along
>> the local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the
>> backhaul from their locally op
On Mon, October 8, 2007 1:06 pm, Roland Perry wrote:
> Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along the
> local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the backhaul from
> their locally operated DSLAM to the ISP's own network.
If you're buying wholesale from the inc
On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:06, Roland Perry wrote:
Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along
the local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the
backhaul from their locally operated DSLAM to the ISP's own network.
Yes, and it's £1,758,693 ($3.5m) PA for a 622M
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy
Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In this bit of Europe (UK), it's the opposite: the cable companies
(CLEC style companies) tend to run unlimited (but within fair use)
aggregate throughput policies, but the DSL operating companies have to
impose aggrega
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote:
Thought experiment: With $250 per megabit per month transit and $30 -
$50 per month tail costs, what would _you_ do to create the perfect
internet industry?
I would fix the problem, ie get more competition into these two areas
where the prices are obv
> AU's infrastructure has a long been a quagmire of political fumbling and
> organised chaos.
hey, i thought it was great of you folk to take joe nacio, convicted
felon, off our hands.
randy
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007, Martin Barry wrote:
> > At a certain point, the deployment cost of your telco network is covered,
> > and it is no longer reasonable to be paying $50/line/month for mere access
> > to the copper.
>
> nice rhetoric. can you come and convince our politicians of that?
>
I th
$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ;
>
> The real problem is the ability of users to adopt new killer apps. This
> eventually breaks down to issues of "how long is it reasonable for users
> to fund that shiny telco network at $50/line/month" and things like that,
> because rather than solving the prob
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 10:33:19AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> Well, since I didn't insist that you follow any definition of "reasonable",
> and in fact I started out by saying
>
> : Continued reliance on broadband users using tiny percentages of their
> : broadband connection certainly makes
> > > Comparative to Milwaukee, I'd be guessing delivering high performance
> > > internet and making enough money to fund expansion and eat is harder at
> > > a non US ISP. It's harder, but there's nothing wrong with it. It compels
> > > you to get inventive.
> >
> > The costs to provide DSL up
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> > However, it is equally possible that there'll be some newfangled killer
> > app that comes along. At some point, this will present a problem. All
> > the self-justification in the world will not matter when the customers
> > want to be able to do som
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
>> towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
>> ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
>
> We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is
> to ba
> The competition regulator has recently imposed an order on them to
> drop their price of access to the raw copper; The incumbent's response
> has been to initiate a national political debate during the present
> federal election campaign campaign over the merits of a nation-wide
> Fiber-To-The
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> However, it is equally possible that there'll be some newfangled killer
> app that comes along. At some point, this will present a problem. All
> the self-justification in the world will not matter when the customers
> want to be able to do something th
... a month including 25% sales tax
^^
and we are complaining about download quotas, ouch
--
James
> 5-10% of swedish households have the possiblity to purchase 100/10 over
> CAT5 for USD50 a month including 25% sales tax, without any quota, and
> they can actually use the speeds. Some even have 100/100.
from japan that seems pretty normal, except for it being available for
such a small propor
On Sun, 7 Oct 2007, Mark Newton wrote:
We're living in an environment where European service providers use
DPI boxes to shape just about everyone to about 40 Gbytes per month,
This doesn't fit with my picture of european broadband at all. Most
markets are developing into flat rate ones witho
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 10:16:16AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote:
> > So to run the numbers: A customer who averages .25Mbit/sec on a tail
> > acquired
> > from the incumbent requires --
> >
> >Port/line rental from the telco ~ $50
> >IP transit~ $ 6 (your numb
> >> No, its that they've run the numbers and found the users above 12G/month
> >> are using a significant fraction of their network capacity for whatever
> >> values of signficant and fraction you define.
> >
> > Of course, that's obvious. The point here is that if your business is so
> > fragi
> > Of course, that's obvious. The point here is that if your business is so
> > fragile that you can only deliver each broadband customer a dialup modem's
> > worth of bandwidth, something's wrong with your business.
>
> Granted 12G is a small allocation. But getting back to the original
> ques
> In the Australian ISP's case (which is what started this) it's rather
> worse.
>
> The local telco monopoly bills between $30 and $50 per month for access
> to the copper tail.
>
> So there's essentially no such thing as a $19.99/month connection here
> (except for short-lived "flash-in-the-pa
> Joe Greco wrote:
> >> Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum
> >> theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a
> >> quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along
> >> to them when they exceed it.
> >
> > And that seems like a bit of
pening elsewhere on the planet?
--
Steven Haigh
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: http://www.crc.id.au
Phone: (03) 9001 6090 - 0412 935 897
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Roland Perry
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:01 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Vassili
Tchersky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In Europe, the only ISPs where i've seen bandwith quotas was some
cables operators
Almost all ADSL operators in the UK operate bandwidth quotas.
eg: Currently my ISP is selling 50/20/5/0.5 GB a month options.
There
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:12:35PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As you say, 90GB is roughly .25Mbps on average. Of course, like you pointed
> out, the users actual bandwidth patterns are most likely not a straight
> line. 95%ile on that 90GB could be considerably higher. But let's take
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> > > Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical
> > > speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at
> > > 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they
> > > exceed it.
> >
> >
Hex Star wrote:
> Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high
> ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is
> there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
In the UK there is a very good reason - BT, see this write up:
http://www.kitz.co
Joe Greco wrote:
>> Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum
>> theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a
>> quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along
>> to them when they exceed it.
>
> And that seems like a bit of the handwavi
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum theoretical
> > speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a quota set at
> > 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along to them when they
> > exceed it.
>
> And that seems
> > And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
> > towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
> > ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
>
> We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is
> to backhaul IP packets from th
> > Now, ISP economics pretty much require that some amount of overcommit
> > will happen. However, if you have a 12GB quota, that works out to
> > around 36 kilobits/sec average. Assuming the ISP is selling 10Mbps
> > connections (and bearing in mind that ADSL2 can certainly go more than
> > th
On 10/5/07 5:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
>> towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
>> ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
>
> We've dropped the ball in any place where
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> > And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
> > towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
> > ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
>
> We've dropped the ball in any place where the broad
> And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
> towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
> ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
We've dropped the ball in any place where the broadband architecture is
to backhaul IP packets from the site wher
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
> It seems like the pertinent question here is: what is stopping DSL
> (or cable) providers in Australia and New Zealand from selling N x
> meg DSL service at low enough prices to avoid the need for a data
> cap? Is it the cost of crossing an ocean whi
On 10/4/07, Hex Star <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
> while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas?
> Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
One early US cable modem company started propagat
> On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote:
> > It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an
> > unlimited
> > US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an
> > unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to
> > look
> > at where the
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:11 +0100
Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
> cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by
> monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US.
>
I don't necessaril
On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote:
It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an
unlimited
US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an
unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to
look
at where the quotas lie on the cu
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
> > Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
> > while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
> > kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
>
> Depending upon the country you're in, that is a po
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely
high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is
there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
De
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
Depending upon the country you're in, that is a possibility. So
Caribbean has the same problem, though... .smaller countries, less
ability to negotiate bandwidth usage/cost...
bananas for bandwidth program.
Leigh Porter wrote:
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Leigh Porter wrote:
> Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with
> import duty etc which obviously means buying more equipment to support
> more throughput costs more money.
The biggest issues are the transmission costs to get
Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high
ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is
there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
There are more than a few US ISPs that have bandwidth quotas, mostly in
the last-mi
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by
monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US.
Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with
import duty etc which obviously means
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
67 matches
Mail list logo
