There's no monopoly. Stop your lines with them and they are just fiber
mpls. If they can't get people are changing and not peering with them,
or refusing free ports its their bad. I'll take it up next week. Tell
me what you all need.
Bryan digitalocean.
PS, were not ipv6 because we had
Make the regulation and force of arms be as targeted as reasonable. In the
case of telecommunications as targeted as reasonable means the "last mile" or,
more correctly, the "local loop".I advocate stringent ongoing oversight and
regulation of the local loop and very little regulation for
On 3/21/2014 9:13 AM, Sholes, Joshua wrote:> How do you get around the
problem of natural monopolies, then?
My strongly held belief is that if the "natural" monopoly* becomes
oppressive somebody in their garage will find another way, and absent
regulation and force of arms available to the "na
Steven,
In general, there isn't much to worry about optically when interfacing
100GBASE-SR10 and 10GBASE-SR. If you are using CFP transceivers or CXP
transceivers for the 100GBASE-SR10, your mileage may vary. For example,
the Avago CXP AFBR-83PDZ has a transmit power range of -7.6dBm to 2.4d
This report has been generated at Fri Mar 21 21:13:54 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 13-Mar-14 -to- 20-Mar-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS27947 46087 1.8% 71.3 -- Telconet S.A
2 - AS840241741 1.6% 21.8 --
> The impact of competition was extensively questioned and researched
> with respect to U.S. Government contracting rules in the early '80s.
> This led to the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984. Since then
> there's been the routine grumble about the lowest quality bidder and
> the periodic sca
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
>> charge=20
>>> for maintenance as a MRC?
>>
>> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
> charge=20
> > for maintenance as a MRC?
>
> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
> building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> Again why is the market so important? It just fascinates me
> that no one questions it.
Howdy,
The impact of competition was extensively questioned and researched
with respect to U.S. Government contracting rules in the early '80s.
This le
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:13 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
>> for maintenance as a MRC?
>
> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
> build
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:21 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
>
>> How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
>
> I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
> competing with are in a different strata providing
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
> for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make that tradeoff. I
> We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with th=
> e services they sell. That is my point. They are able to spread the costs=
> out based on the profitable services they sell.
Okay.
> If they were not able to =
> sell us services I am not sure they could afford t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On a related note, another great way to keep track of new ICANN
registry agreements is the gTLD Tech mailing list:
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-tech
...and the gTLD Notification list:
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtldnotific
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
competing with are in a different strata providing the same service.
eg: Cellular data competes with DSL/DOCSIS/F
On Friday 21 March 2014 09:13:28 Naslund, Steve wrote:
> ... In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you
> that I paid the LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to
> sell DSL service at around ten times that cost. I am sure the LEC was not
making money at the $4 a mont
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
On Mar 20, 2014, at 11:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
> Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require
> "regulation".
>
>
>
> Original message
> From: "Mike."
> Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
>
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:13 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with the
> services they sell. That is my point. They are able to spread the costs out
> based on the profitable services they sell. If they were not able to sell us
>
On Friday, March 21, 2014 05:59:54 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> So, as far as the government or Wall Street funding the
> build out of the commercial Internet, that is not what
> happened.
Lots of terrestrial and submarine optical fibre was built in
the late 90's, and much of it has either gone un
We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with the
services they sell. That is my point. They are able to spread the costs out
based on the profitable services they sell. If they were not able to sell us
services I am not sure they could afford to provide that infras
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> What do you mean by average monthly bill?
What is the average monthly (non-subsidized) access cost that your
friends and family pay each month?
-Jim P.
Well, we were originally talking about regulation in the US as discussed by
Level 3 in the subject article, but we can get into the international space if
you like.
So, as far as the government or Wall Street funding the build out of the
commercial Internet, that is not what happened.
I was th
What do you mean by average monthly bill? That is the issue here. The average
monthly bill includes the services you are getting. In the Chicago area a
fiber optic access circuit unbundled from the imcumbent carrier to a
competitive carrier is something like $10 a month or so. How could you
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:30:45PM +, Sholes, Joshua wrote:
> >http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
> >
> >This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
> >recent developments.
> >
> >We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
>
Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county taxes
on chairs,
Obama care, accountants and time required.
Bob Evans
CTO
Bob Evans
CTO
Do you need IPv4 space to lease, space you can use until IPv6 is the
standard?
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve
> wrot
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building infrastructure but
> not selling the services on top of it. Remember Global Crossing? You are
> asking one company to put up all the capital expense and then try to recover
> it
Hi all, is there anyone who has experience the interworking 100GBASE-SR10 with
10GBASE-SR over 24-fiber ribbon cables terminated with MPO/MTP-24 connectors?
If yes, any implementation consideration I should be aware?
Regards,
Steven Lee
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:25:09 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building
> infrastructure but not selling the services on top of
> it. Remember Global Crossing? You are asking one
> company to put up all the capital expense and then try
> to recover
>http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
>
>This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
>recent developments.
>
>We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
>regulatory and legislative manipulation that led to the current outcome,
Th
> How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
> we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
> all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
> my house?
>
> IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the l
>>How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
>>we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
>>all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to my
house?
We already did it. The Telecommunications Act all
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
my house?
IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the last mile is
34 matches
Mail list logo
