Since network neutrality and title ii regulation is back in the news,
and the issues
so fraught with technical and political mis-conceptions, I have
started a new mailing list to discuss it, and try (for once) to feed
back valid techical feedback into the FCC´s normal processes. I kind
of expect so
Dear colleagues,
As many of you know, the FCC is currently engaging in the process of
repealing its network neutrality rules and eliminating its Title II
authority over broadband providers.
I'm writing you today to ask you to sign on to a letter that EFF has
prepared for filing, which explains se
On 06/17/2017 02:10 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
> I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
> (parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
> keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
> municipal boundaries qua
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> It does have a few color pictures, though. And one comic strip.
>
Upvote for use of 'caisson'.
There is at least one thing that Sen. Ted Stevens got right; in the fiber
era, the Internet really *is* a series of tubes.
I appreciate t
> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10616167661646/satchell.answers2questions.NPRM.17-108.pdf
Warning: this is 63 pages long, and dull as dishwater.
It does have a few color pictures, though. And one comic strip.
Summary: fix the statutes (thank you Sen. Stevens, for the junk!) and
apply Title II o
Zero rating is probably pretty popular with end users and puts net neutrality
advocates in a difficult position. It is an astute political move. The EU
allowing zero ratings exceptions because it is popular.
- R.
From: Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Sunday
On 2016-10-30 14:20, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
>
> What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?
The Telecom Act has had a clasue against undue
preference/discrimination, as well as a "cannot control content", but
both have loopholes. (27(2) , a carrier
Hi Jean,
What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?
Regards,
Roderick.
From: NANOG on behalf of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FYI: Net Neutrality in Canada
This is a heads up, the CRTC
This is a heads up, the CRTC (Canada's FCC) is holding a week long
hearing on net neutrality in Canada ("differential pricing" is the used).
Canada has had its "ITMP" (Internet Traffic Management Practices) policy
since 2009 which deals with unfair throttling, and no
> In a new report published today - and filed to the FCC, as well
> - van Schewick says that Binge on "violates key net neutrality
> principles" and "is likely to violate the FCC's general conduct
> rule."
Sure it does, but will anything ever be done about it?
Jared
Presumably, this is getting some eyes:
http://www.tmonews.com/2016/01/t-mobiles-binge-on-violates-net-neutrality-says-stanford-report/
T-Mobile's Binge On violates net neutrality, says Stanford report
In a new report published today - and filed to the FCC, as well
- van Schewick
ce again.
Moreover, anyone can pay for zero-rating.
In the T-Mobile binge-on case, it's probably a violation of net
neutrality. Unless I misunderstand, they're zero-rating folks based on
content and technology rather than payment. That's a no-no. They make
the case that they&#
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
>> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
>> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
>
> If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs
> On Dec 11, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> wrote:
>>> is that still net neutrality?
>>
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
&g
On 23 November 2015 at 20:45, Mark Andrews wrote:
> T-Mo could have just increased the data limits by the data usage
> of 7x24 standard definition video stream and achieved the same thing
> in a totally network neutral way. Instead they choose to play
> favourites with a type of technology.
1,5M
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
>> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
>>
>> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 18:51 , Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
>> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
>
>
> If the retail customer pays for $70 fo
On 2015-12-10 21:39, William Herrin wrote:
> Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each packet has one payer,
> it doesn't much matter whether the payer is sender or recipient.
If the retail customer pays for $70 for 100 gigs of UBB, and uses 50
gigs of Netflix, then the result is that the c
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
wrote:
> In related news, Verizon and ATT WILL be charging their data partners:
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/verizon-to-test-sponsored-data-let-companies-pay-to-bypass-data-caps/
Howdy,
Personally, I'm not opposed to this. When each pac
On 2015-12-10 20:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What if the rate charged is the same?
>
> Wouldn’t it still be problematic if:
>
> I pay VZ $15/Gigabyte for all data I use except Netflix which gets billed
> automatically to Netflix instead of me?
If Netflix gets charged the same retail rate, then I g
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 17:49 , Jean-Francois Mezei
> wrote:
>
> On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
>
>> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
>> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
>> customers' data plans.
>
>
On 2015-12-10 13:07, William Kenny wrote:
> "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
> would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
> customers' data plans.
In Canada, the Telecom Act 27(2) states:
Unjust discrimination
(2) No Can
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:26 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:58 , Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> >
> > In message e24772e7-a95b-4866-9630-2b1023ebd...@delong.com>>, Owen DeLong write
> > s:
> >>
> >>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon,
cable TV or landline or long-distance line business.
On December 10, 2015 at 13:32 c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
> > On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
> > wrote:
> > > is that still net neutrality?
>
> > "Verizon is reportedly set to begin testing a sponsored data program that
> > would let companies pay Verizon to deliver online services without using up
> > customers' data plans. The news comes from aRe/code interview
This is usually referred to as "zero-rating" and is related to,
perhap
> On Dec 10, 2015, at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> I could have paid more to get it faster, and some large-scale shippers
> have special arrangements that seem to get their packages priority. How
> is this different from Internet traffic?
For me the better comparison is international postal
On Thu 2015-Dec-10 13:32:25 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
wrote:
> is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Inter
, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> wrote:
>> > is that still net neutrality?
>>
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>
> Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
>
> Shippers (you know, actual Common Carriers) do thing
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
>> wrote:
>> > is that still net neutrality?
>>
>> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
>
&g
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 1:07 PM, William Kenny
> wrote:
> > is that still net neutrality?
>
> who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
Any why the desire for extra regulation for Internet services?
Shippers (you k
gt; Verizon Executive VP Marni Walden. “The capabilities we’ve built allow us
> to break down any byte that is carried across our network and have all or a
> portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."
>
> is that still net neutrality?
who cares? mobile was excepted from the NN rulings.
that is carried across our network and have all or a
portion of that sponsored,” Walden told Re/code."
is that still net neutrality?
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Collin Anderson
wrote:
> This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
> conversation, so I w
https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8
New America
Please note our new address!
740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
Wednesday, December 16, 2015 |
om
> Sent: Sunday, 22 November, 2015 16:30
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> So, which porn sites are zero rated? Uh, asking for a friend.
>
> (Would love to be a fly on the wall when those and other uncomfortable
> requests to join come in.)
>
> Jared
5 14:50
> To: Steve Mikulasik
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> It’s a full page of standards in a relatively large font with decent
> spacing.
>
> Given that bluetooth is several hundred pages, I’d say this is pretty
> r
Keenan Tims wrote:
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> That's not neutr
On 2015-11-23 17:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Sure, but I really don’t think there’s an exchange per se in this case, given
> that T-Mo
> is (at least apparently) willing to accommodate any streaming provider that
> wants to
> participate so long as they are willing to conform to a fairly basic set
On 2015-11-23 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
> partners
> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them.
In Canada, Vidéotron has begun a similar scheme for streaming music. It
is currently at the CRTC. They also
Hi Owen,
> To me, net neutrality isn’t as much about what you charge the customer for
> the data, it’s about
> whether you prioritize certain classes of traffic to the detriment of others
> in terms of
> service delivery.
>
> If T-Mobile were taking money from the video
nanog.org
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 9:00:11 PM
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
That's not neutral treatment fr
calls. Video calls.
>> Stuff that requires low latency and where TCP retransmit of stale data is
>> bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
>>
>> And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
>> certain exceptions? Like not zero
why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media
> > with certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to
> > compete with some of their own services, such as voice calls and video
> > calls.
> >
> > Yes sounds like net neutrality to
ro rating media that happens to compete with
> some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
>
> Yes sounds like net neutrality to me too (or not!).
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
All T-Mobile plans include unlimited 128kbps data, so a voice call is
effectively
of stale data is
bad. Media without buffering because it is real time.
And why would a telco want to zero rate all the bandwidth heavy media with
certain exceptions? Like not zero rating media that happens to compete with
some of their own services, such as voice calls and video calls.
Yes sounds
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> Except thereâs no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the
> streaming partners
> >> arenât paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo
is is backwards. It's definitely a net neutrality issue since it
concerns inequal access for customers to content on the Internet.
Whether it's subject to current laws or regulation is a matter for the
lawyers, but current laws and regulations at least in the US are a far
cry
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 14:16 , Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
>> partners
>> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like
>> zero-
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Except there’s no revenue share here. According to T-Mobile, the streaming
> partners
> aren’t paying anything to T-Mo and T-Mo isn’t paying them. It’s kind of like
> zero-rating
> in that the customers don’t pay bandwidth charges, but it’s d
that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
>> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
>> is pro-competition.
>>
>> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
>> was supposed to prevent -- c
f91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=XFz213dwbX7LmC2FwUAeJn5HP%2bAV9rU6b4dCatA%2b6FM%3d
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that
So, which porn sites are zero rated? Uh, asking for a friend.
(Would love to be a fly on the wall when those and other uncomfortable requests
to join come in.)
Jared
anog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Binge On! - And
> So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in
> UDP since UDP is stateless.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Nov 20, 2015, at 09:03 , Steve Mikulasik
>> wrot
ulasik<mailto:steve.mikula...@civeo.com>
Cc: Ian Smith<mailto:i.sm...@f5.com>; nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
I think they actually might… It’s very hard to identify streams in UDP since
UDP is stateless.
Owen
> On Nov
...@f5.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
> To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
> ; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
>
> http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pdf/BingeOn-Video-Technical-Criteria-November-2015.pdf
&
On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
What are these technical requirements? I feel like these would punish small
upstarts well helping protect large incumbent services from competition.
Even if you don't demand payment, you can still hurt the fairness of the
internet this way.
-Ori
Unlimited data plan is $30/mo.
Other than the usual cellular caveats of coverage sucks in lots of places and
data
rates can be slow when you’re in a densely populated area, congestion,
oversubscription,
etc… Doesn’t seem to have any problems. I’ve been on that plan for most of a
year now.
The
Once upon a time, Blake Hudson said:
> Not that I mind getting significantly more service at little
> additional cost - as proposed by T-Mobile. But I would have
> preferred to simply get unlimited data usage (or a much larger
> monthly allotment) and had the freedom to use that data how I see
> f
the requirements.
In fact, it looks to me
like the bare minimum of reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.
I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as
actually being a potential boon
to
reasonable and an expression by T-Mo of a willingness
to expend a fair amount
of effort to integrate content providers.
I don’t see anything here that hurts net neutrality and I applaud this as
actually being a potential boon
to consumers and a potentially good model of how to implement ZRB in a
net
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Logic tells me that, if the major incumbents content doesn't count against
> the cap, this leaves more bandwidth for other applications. What am I
> missing?
Cross-subsidy. It's a standard tool of monopoly abuse.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
Wi
es similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
Neutrality] Because there are fe
s similar, stifle growth of applications. If there
> are additional (artificial) burdens for operating in a field it becomes
> harder to get into. Because it's harder to get into, fewer operators
> compete. [Note, we just reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
> Neutrality] Bec
t easier for the
FCC to look past the fact that this is a violation of basic net
neutrality. Reminds me of the boiling frog analogy (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog).
Clay
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> It's not. And that's the point.
>
>
st reduced open competition, one tenet of Net
Neutrality] Because there are fewer operators there will be less
competition. Less competition increases prices and fewer customers take
the service. Because few people use the application, the network
operator has no incentive to support the application w
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Brim"
> What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
> is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
> cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
> also think I remember that there is
Considering T-Mobile's proposal is intended to favor streaming music and
video services, I think it clearly violates net neutrality which is
intended to not only promote competition in existing applications, but
also in new (possibly undeveloped) applications. This proposal simply
entre
at content provider"
-Original Message-
From: Ian Smith [mailto:i.sm...@f5.com]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:52 AM
To: Steve Mikulasik ; Shane Ronan
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
http://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/tmo/en-g/pd
NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Shane Ronan
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 9:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content providers
for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, L
laims they are not accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is
re not accepting any payment from these content
> providers for inclusion in Binge On.
>
> "Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
> program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include," he
> said. "This is not a
tream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
is pro-competition.
My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of &
T-Mobile claims they are not accepting any payment from these content
providers for inclusion in Binge On.
"Onstage today, Legere said any company can apply to join the Binge On
program. "Anyone who can meet our technical requirement, we’ll include,"
he said. "This is
ut only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to t
on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
and that *that* is th
Snbbb
Sent from my Porsche Design P´9982 smartphone from BlackBerry.
Original Message
From: Rich Kulawiec
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:25 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sign-On Letter to the Court in the FCC's Net Neutrality Case
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:41:52AM -0400,
I signed on as well, but why didn’t the EFF at least publish the letter to the
list?
It was well written and laid out, even for politicians. Personally, I would
have included some VoIP stuff that’s well known about, but "que sera, sera”.
The main point being if you want people to sign up, show
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Me too. Be sure to actually read the Amicus brief - it's incredibly
> well written and informative.
I've signed on as well and strongly concur with Miles' recommendation.
---rsk
William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 9/16/15 11:12 AM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Why don't you post a copy here or a link?
https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/14/eff-aclu_internet_engineers_and_pioneers_statement.pdf
I've agreed.
Me too. Be sure to actually read the Amicus brief - it's incredibly
w
On 9/16/15 11:12 AM, Peter Beckman wrote:
Why don't you post a copy here or a link?
https://www.eff.org/files/2015/09/14/eff-aclu_internet_engineers_and_pioneers_statement.pdf
I've agreed.
Why don't you post a copy here or a link?
The message seems good; the process is broken.
Beckman
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
i read it, its rather good.
-e
On 9/12/15 12:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
i read it, its rather good.
-e
On 9/12/15 12:45 PM, John Levine wrote:
/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
(off list) */and I will be happy to share a copy of the letter for you
to review before you agree to sign on.
Why don't you just send us a copy or a li
>/*If you're willing to sign on and help today, please email me directly
>(off list) */and I will be happy to share a copy of the letter for you
>to review before you agree to sign on.
Why don't you just send us a copy or a link? If you're planning to
file it as an amicus it's not like it's going
Dear colleagues,
Apologies in advance for the spam, but as many of you know, several
large ISPs and their industry organizations are challenging the FCC's
recent net neutrality order in court. Since the outcome of this case
could have real consequences for how Internet services work in the
f
On 16/Aug/15 00:50, Harry McGregor wrote:
>
>
>
> Before this happens (ie when hell freezes over), I would like to see
> new home communities deploying fiber networks as part of the building
> of the "master plan" of the community. That way the home owners
> association can go out for bid ev
On 08/15/2015 09:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between physical
infrastructure providers and those that provide services over that
infrastructure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and requiring
physical infrastructure provider
On 15/Aug/15 22:45, jim deleskie wrote:
> There is more to it, then just being tired of it, it take, $$ and time
> and bodies to build a network, even in 1 country. Its not something
> everyone can do. I suspect the "game" and transit networks, will
> continue long after most of us are no long
There is more to it, then just being tired of it, it take, $$ and time and
bodies to build a network, even in 1 country. Its not something everyone
can do. I suspect the "game" and transit networks, will continue long
after most of us are no long "playing"
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Mark
On 15/Aug/15 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> IMHO, there’s only one yes answer here… If enough of the eyeball/content
> providers are able to cooperate and peer with each other directly, you might
> see a significant impact (reduction in need) on transit providers as their
> entire
> business wou
On 15/Aug/15 19:32, jim deleskie wrote:
> In my 20+ yrs now of playing this game, "everyone" has had a turn thinking
> their content/eyeballs are special and should get free "peering".
That's why those tired of playing the game build their own networks to
take out the middleman, for better or w
Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>> To: "Matthew Huff"
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
>> Subject: Re:
;> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>&
p://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
> Co
ons
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2
west-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
>
ernet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
To: "Matthew Huff"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Cogent
in Dallas
Th
On Aug 15, 2015, at 06:40 , Matthew Huff wrote:
>
> It's only partially about net neutrality. Cogent provides cheap bandwidth for
> content providers, and sends a lot of traffic to eyeball networks. In the
> past, peering partners expected symmetrical load sharing. Cogent feels
On 08/15/2015 06:40 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
neither side wants to upgrade their peeing
Oh, the irony of this typo of "peering"...
It's only partially about net neutrality. Cogent provides cheap bandwidth for
content providers, and sends a lot of traffic to eyeball networks. In the past,
peering partners expected symmetrical load sharing. Cogent feels that eyeball
networks should be happy to carry their traffic sinc
I have several customers that are having packet loss issues, the packet loss
appears to be associated with a Cogent router interface of 38.104.86.222. My
upstream provider is telling me that the packet loss is being caused by a net
neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Quest and Cogent
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we
have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an
upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate
of 1mbps.
BTW, the reason we're w
1 - 100 of 733 matches
Mail list logo
