Frank Bulk wrote:
2) DSL and fiber have limitations, too. The modulation and spectrum width
can vary, but most MSOs have their forward configured with a maximum of
around 38 Mbps (256-QAM, 6 MHz wide) and the return in the 9 Mbps range
(64-QAM, 3.2 MHz wide). Charts here:
Forward: http://www.
On 20/10/2007, at 6:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
For those who don't recognise the name (presumably many people),
Citylink are a disruptive high-speed metro transport provider in
Wellington, New Zealand. They run the most elaborate and scary
layer-2 switched ethernet network I've ever heard of,
Communication of rules is fair... I was criticizing the "net
neutrality" argument. They should communicate the rules, I agree.
On 10/19/07, Justin M. Streiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>
> > Since when did private companies no longer have the
Because you signed up to an AUP that allows what they are doing.
That, and in most states, if you rent my house, I can throw you out
for no reason given that I give you proper notice and enough time.
In this case, if you want to use rental analogies, that's like saying
a landlord can't evict you
On Oct 19, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Sean Figgins wrote:
You ever wonder why some places have cable modem but not DSL?
That's usually because the telcos can't get the bandwidth there.
That is a laughable statement.
In many places there is no real ability to tag the voice traffic
with a higher
Martin Hannigan wrote:
O&M, etc. We already know that the givens are that it's generally
socially unacceptable to filter, but without Comcast's motivation
being know, it's hard to speculate as to the "why" they did it. Let's
not.
It's not at all hard to imagine WHY. In fact, it's almost a gi
Eric Spaeth wrote:
It's worth noting that the traffic Comcast is filtering is called out in
their Terms of Use in the "PROHIBITED USES AND ACTIVITIES" section,
paragraph xiv. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp
That section could be applied to every application that you would run on
your
On 10/19/07, Patrick Giagnocavo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
>
> >
> > Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
> > their own property?
> >
> > I must have missed the Amendment...
>
> If you want to make a pro
At 03:10 PM 10/19/2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
fair share of bandwidth.
Let's be honest. The US ISPs have been advertising "unlimited"
service, but hea
For those who don't recognise the name (presumably many people),
Citylink are a disruptive high-speed metro transport provider in
Wellington, New Zealand. They run the most elaborate and scary
layer-2 switched ethernet network I've ever heard of, and the other
week they ran into some prob
On Oct 19, 2007, at 3:42 PM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
their own property?
I must have missed the Amendment...
If you want to make a property argument, how do you explain them
denying me my right to enjoy my rental of
On 10/19/07, Clinton Popovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Who are we to say what is illegal traffic... I mean they could be
> downloading anything from p2p not just mp3's.. don't get me wrong I HATE WoW
> but it uses bittorrent to decentralize its updates.
At this point in Internet evolution,
Mike Lewinski wrote:
I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine,
Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over
443/tcp?
Most vendors claim to be able to look into the payload and determine
that it is p2p traffic instead of http/https traff
On 10/19/07, Mike Lewinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> With the remaining 1% being Linux ISOs.
>
> I wonder what happens to these network police appliances (Sandvine,
> Packeteer etc) when the P2Ps implement encryption and tunnel it all over
> 443/tcp?
They'll just monitor for streams that uti
Has anyone (any lawyers here on the list?) investigated the legality
of this action? With the FCC eliminating common carriage limits on
ISPs, it seems that blocking traffic to/from particular IP addresses,
etc., is acceptable. But from this description of Comcast's activities,
it appears that th
On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
> their own property?
>
> I must have missed the Amendment...
>
> (Yeah, ok, I exaggerated the 99%)
>
>
It's not a matter of them not being able to do what they want
Since when did private companies no longer have the right to regulate
their own property?
I must have missed the Amendment...
(Yeah, ok, I exaggerated the 99%)
On 10/19/07, Mark Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I love how the
On 10/19/07, John C. A. Bambenek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
> honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
> fair share of bandwidth.
And 84% of statistics are made up on site. If it is illegal it is
Well, as far as I'm concerned WoW can burn and get blocked with the
rest of the bad traffic because they are externalizing their
maintenance costs on others. They should pay for the bandwidth to
update their own software.
On 10/19/07, Clinton Popovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who are we to s
I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be
honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their
fair share of bandwidth.
On 10/19/07, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Comcast-Data-Discrimination-Tests.html
Not a lot more I can say, other than argghhh!
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Leo,
> We need to get the code fixed, that is the most important item at
> this time.
This is absolutely true. The purpose of my note was to provide an
understanding of why we're splitting the process into two by
demonstrating that picking the correct use requires more work. Each of
the possib
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 12:24:44PM -0400, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
>
> More code, more regression testing, same number of programmers. Do the math.
Less code, every patch produced to date /removes/ code.
More regression te
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 11:19:57AM -0400, [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
> How much ship date slip for the IPv6 features you need are you willing to
> accept when 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
Why would the 240/4 updates blow the schedule?
I ask this for two reasons:
1) The ma
In a message written on Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 10:20:43AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> So. There are mine. You probably have others you would add to the
> list. I think I can speak for Vince and Dave when I say that we should
> consider these cases as we are actually removing 240.0.0.0/4 from our
>
Dear all,
Thanks to Vince for presenting at NANOG. Everyone should recognize by
now that this is a provocative topic. Even the authors of
draft-fuller-240space-00.txt do not altogether agree on what should
happen in the medium term. The one thing we do agree on, and we hope
you do to, is that
26 matches
Mail list logo
