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

On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: > business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: D

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? If the option

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for

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

Hostnaming is not always straightforward, as there are variations of commercial service (some with static IPs, others with dynamic, some enterprise, branch office, SMB, etc.). FWIW: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 06:22 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote: > I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. > Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. > > People don't miss what they have never had. I would agree with that statement in a slightly modified form: "People don't

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth >24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? Statistically speaking, those might *be* symmetric. On 03/02/2015 08:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, The sold speeds are all actually less than the actual speeds. The PON customers are slightly over provisioned and the DOCSIS customers are over provisioned a bit more. On Mar 2, 2015 10:01 AM, "Daniel Taylor" wrote: > What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? > >

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

My apologies for the implication. I meant that on the Internet as a whole it is unusual for such speeds to actually be realized in practice due to various issues. 8-10Mb/s seems to be what one can expect without going to distributed protocols. On 03/02/2015 09:06 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Da

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms wrote: > We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same > on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus > 50/12 accounts. perhaps because there are no widely-deployed applications that are designed wit

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Your point has been made here many times as has mine. There's enough upstream available on enough carriers that if there were some big upload unicorn out there waiting to be harnessed... they'd be able to do it. All that the consumer has ever had that could benefit is P2P and offsite backup.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's certainly true and why we watch the trends of usage very closely and we project those terms into the future knowing that's imperfect. What we won't do is build networks based purely on guesses. We certainly see demand for upstream capacity increasing for residential customers, but that inc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Correct. For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer), which are used to ³split² the RF spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be amplified independently, befor

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Can we stop the disingenuity? > >Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from deploying >"commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. > >One can argue all sorts of other "benefits" of this but when this started that >was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly distin

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount of time it takes to download content. This. Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL c

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

On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine wrote: [...] Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else. There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes the documents public, which th

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>> I was an ISP in the 1990s and our first DSL offerings were SDSL >> symmetric services to replace more expensive T-1 circuits. When >> we got into residential it was with SDSL and then the consumers >> wanted more downstream so ADSL was invented. I was there, I >> know th

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Average != Peak. > What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time. What matters is av

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 09:20 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any inst

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> >It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload to >begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. >How many more people would stream to twitch or youtube or skype if they didn't >have to hear this, "Are you uploading? You're slowing down the downl

Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> > >::AWG:: Strawman Alert! > >Nobody's talking about taking poor Erlang behind the barn and shooting him. > >We're talking about being able to send upstream at a reasonable/comparable >rate as downstream. > > >Mike Exactly, now you see the dilemma. What is reasonable/comparable? Is

RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it wa

Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:53:33PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: > Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC > is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that > someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. > IANA

RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

Given the size and that the data is stored in encrypted RAR files, I wonder if they just busted a Usenet service provider rather than a P2P / file sharing site. Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 9

Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

Part of it depends on if the DC was doing managed services as well. If they are just a space tenant then their exposure can be limited. But if it was their servers that will be a little different. Not saying it would make the difference, but opens another avenue to be argued. To me it’s like

Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

Canadian and US laws are similar. But I'll leave it up to the lawyers to figure it all out, happily I'm no where near this, but it being a small industry here, I suspect I have friends that are dealing with some crap right now On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mike A wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 201

RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

Here is what is going to hurt or help the cops case. "The volume of information is so expansive that in order to store and analyze the data safely and securely, police had to purchase storage hardware similar to what was used by Canadian military forces in Afghanistan. To access the files, many

Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

On Mar 2, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Mike A wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:53:33PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: >> Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC >> is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that >> someone DID know what was s

Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material

In article <1c6ee78f6c1e400289fa7797f3ba6...@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com> you write: >Given the size and that the data is stored in encrypted RAR files, I wonder if >they >just busted a Usenet service provider rather than a P2P / file sharing site. Unlikely. There aren't that many large usenet provid

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28-Feb-15 21:55, Barry Shein wrote: > On February 28, 2015 at 17:20 na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) wrote: >> As I said earlier, there are only so many channels available. >> Channels added to upload are taken away from download. People use >> upload so infrequently it would be gross negligence

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 09:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > A. Me - "Hey genius, why don't you download a movie about networks > because my upload does not affect your streaming movie download > except for the insignificant amount of control traffic in the > opposite direction." > Unless there is significant

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time

Symmetry, DSL, and all that

Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... >From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. "Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year

FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. > >Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with >some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that >to the company server. And let's say I want to do that

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Fletcher Kittredge" To: "NANOG list" Sent: Mon

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

Damn A key... I mean asymmetric. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" To: "NANOG list" Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 1:00:04 PM Subject: Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that The backend is still symme

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Unless there is significant stupidly-done bufferbloat, where the >"insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction" is delayed >because the big blocks of the upload are causing a traffic jam in the upstream >pipe. Which has nothing at all to do with the asymmetry of the circ

RE: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

>The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 >gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. > > Truth is, once the user is achieving what they consider to be acceptable performance they don't care if it is symmetric or not. > > >Not a very informative discu

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

The most important point is yes, that no one cares. If people wanted it, it would be sold to them. End. of. story. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Steve Naslund" To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG list" Sent: Mo

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

On 03/02/2015 02:19 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. Truth is, once the user is achieving what they consider to be acceptable performance they don't care if it is symmetric

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > The most important point is yes, that no one cares. If people wanted it, > it would be sold to them. End. of. story. I will repeat myself, speaking very slowly. Please see original message for citations. Verizon has eight million FIOS custo

Routing objects

Anyone out there messed with routing objects lately that would care to let me bounce a few sanity check things off them? Maybe someone bored wanting to talk to a fellow geek on Skype or phone for a few minutes. Thanks, Justin Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net

Re: FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote: That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say

Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:41:30PM -0500, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > > The most important point is yes, that no one cares. If people wanted it, > > it would be sold to them. End. of. story. > > > I will repeat myself, speaking very slowly

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

Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular

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

San Jose is most certainly not a pure coax network and is HFC. HSD does mean High Speed Data. On Mar 2, 2015 3:26 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote: > Not so sure about that… > > 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR > c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. > > is most definitely a business class service

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen wrote: > > On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount >> of time it takes to download content. > This. > > Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I > o

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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Odd how the graphing for the top 1000 Usenet servers showed exactly the pattern I predicted. On Mar 2, 2015 3:46 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > > > Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant > > changes to the protocol or human behavior. > > > > We ran significant Us

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Barry Shein wrote: > 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.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On March 1, 2015 at 16:13 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > 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 m

[NANOG-announce] Fwd: CFP Test

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 64 - San Francisco - Call for Presentations is Open!

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen wrote: ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that?

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

> On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:40 , Lamar Owen wrote: > > On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen wrote: >>> >>> ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I >>> can shut the machine down and go to bed. >> How much of your do

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit up

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

I don't usually chime in on the list, but since this seems to be another hot item, i'll pitch in my $0.005 (since the $$ has been going up these days). IIRC the entire reason we have asymmetry to begin with is because it was created to resolve an issue with older ADSL hardware. I believe the reaso

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

In message <000101d05567$74b58530$5e208f90$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download > speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the > most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the > ge

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's fine and very practical and understandable. But it's no reason for the net not to keep marching forward at its own pace which I think is more what's being discussed. I'm pretty sure that prior to 2007 (year of the first iphone launch) not many people were clamoring for full, graphical int