Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example > backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it > takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week, > blue sky. If that terabyte drive holds

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example > > backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it > > takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week, > > blue sky. > > If that teraby

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: > Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was > symmetrical. The rot set in with V.90 "56k" modems - they were asymmetric - only the downstream was 56k. The only way to achieve this in the analogue realm was by digital synthesis at

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:25:41PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jba...@paradoxnetworks.net): > On 2/27/2015 5:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: > >What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical > >last mile. And not that PON shit. T

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: > Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US > currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture of the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Aled Morris wrote: Sadly we don't have many "killer applications" for symmetric residential bandwidth, but that's likely because we don't have the infrastructure to incubate these applications. Come to think of it, if USENET software wasn't so cumbersome, I kind of wonder if today's "social

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant changes to the protocol or human behavior. We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, "Miles Fidelman

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Scott, Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? Miles Fidelman Scott Helms wrote: Anything based on NNTP would be extremely

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Miles, Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a few servers are the source original content and how long individual servers choose (and have the disk) to keep specific content. It was never designed to

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 06:38 PM, Scott Helms wrote: You're off on this. When PacketCable 1.0 was in development and it's early deployment there were no OTT VOIP providers of note. Vonage at that time was trying sell their services to the MSOs and only when that didn't work or did they start going d

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael, Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good enough for OTT On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, "Michael Thomas" wrote: > > On 02/28/201

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 05:08 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote: Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business services - it was a

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical reasons. I'm well aware. I was there. Mike On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas"

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good enough for OTT Being at Pack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: > On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > > there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was > > commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively > > asymmetric to start with so

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael, Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the same frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require completely redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and tap filters in the plant. At the same time we'd have to replace all of the modems,

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

You mean CableLabs? On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" wrote: > > On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Michael, > > Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or > vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT. > The reason the b

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote: You mean CableLabs? Yes. Mike On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" > wrote: On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/2015 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: They didn't want to give channels for internet bandwidth either. Life would have been *far* more simple had the MSO's not *forced* the hardware designer to use their crappy noisy back channel, such as it was. The move from analog -- which was happe

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the same frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require completely redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and tap filters in the plant. At the

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: >> Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US >> currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. > > Unfortunately, that's not entirely true.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I am not normally, willingly, on nanog. My emailbox is full enough. I am responding, mostly, to a post I saw last night, where the author complained about the horrid performance he got when attempting a simultaneous up and download on a X/512k upload DSL link. That is so totally fixable now, at sp

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Hey Barry - you ran some rather huge NNTP servers, back in the day, you have any comments on this? Scott Helms wrote: Miles, Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a few servers are the source ori

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <54f32f1a.9090...@meetinghouse.net> you write: >Scott, > >Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between >servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running >locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? There's always a lo

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org> you write: >On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: >> Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US >> currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. > >Unfortunately, that's not entirely true.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >> bandwidth caps. > > let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing > since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity. CIDR was inv

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >>> bandwidth caps. >> >> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing >> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? >

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:25 PM, John Levine wrote: > In article <20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org> you write: >>On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: >>> Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US >>> currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retai

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Frank was the most vocal… the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in” assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64 nonsense. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad wrote: >> O

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, "Christopher Morrow" wrote: >>>Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX >>>spam >>>from Comcast customers: >fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business >customer links. Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run mail servers

Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

I have put this on a blog post, and my g+ also, here, and submitted the story to slashdot and reddit. How I spend my sunday afternoons these days! The linky version: http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2015/03/virgin-media-fixing-epidemic-of.html or g+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: > Dave, > > I appreciate all your work on buffer bloat. It looks like you have done quite > a lot of selfless contribution. However, I don't think you're effectively > communicating with the people who can change things. > > After I read what yo

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

On 3/1/2015 5:28 PM, Dave Taht wrote: My IP address is apparently now banned from accessing your site at all, for "advertising", on this thread: http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-152Mb/Bufferbloat-High-Latency-amp-packet-loss-when-connection/td-p/2773495 I don't see how codel is rel

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

Well, with luck probably it will just bounce off their corporate hull and drift into the Kuiper belt. Say hi to Sugar ;) -mel > On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:01 PM, "Dave Taht" wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mel Beckman wrote: >> Dave, >> >> I appreciate all your work on buffer bloat.

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 3/1/2015 5:28 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> >> My IP address is apparently now banned from accessing your site at >> all, for "advertising", on this thread: >> >> >> http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-152Mb/Bufferbloat-High-Latency-amp-pac

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

On 3/1/2015 6:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote: It is 100% possible to fix excessive downstream buffering from some misconfigured device with a shaper on the download *on the CPE or home router*. From OP: "However I've recently noticed periods of 500-800ms latency to the CMTS gateway when only using 15

Re: Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media

http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/disabling-shaping-in-one-direction-with.html On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 3/1/2015 6:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote: >> >> It is 100% possible to fix excessive downstream buffering from some >> misconfigured device with a shaper on the dow

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine wrote: > > Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US > currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try t

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine wrote: >> >> Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US >> currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. > > Unfortunately, that's not entirely

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 17:58 , John R. Levine wrote: > >>> As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and >>> generaly no blocking. > >> Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. > > I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices l

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15 1:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >>> bandwidth caps. >> >> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing >> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? > > CIDR had not

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 01:44 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business > customer links. Correct as far as Charter goes. Particularly for people with dedicated IP addresses, as I do. I can't speak for DHCP address space.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15 7:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Scott, > > Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between > servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running > locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? The most densly connected relays

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there aren't more that do.

Charter/Comcast Enginner-Contact

Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there, I would appreciate a contact off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be transferred to comcast & am seeing unusual network issues. Thanks, Mitchell T. Lewis mle...@techcompute.net LinkedIn Profile: www.link

Charter/Comcast Enginner-Contact

Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there? I would appreciate a contact off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be transferred to comcast & am seeing unusual network issues. Thanks, Mitchell T. Lewis mle...@techcompute.net LinkedIn Profile: www.l

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <54f3d78a.5080...@satchell.net> you write: >On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. > >That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives >its customers static addresses. Only one. Tha

Re: Charter/Comcast Enginner-Contact

The Charter engineers are all working on their IPV6 migration and have been for at least three years now :-( .On 3/1/2015 6:25 PM, Lewis,Mitchell T. wrote: Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there? I would appreciate a contact off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be