On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 02:42:36PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark
> fiber options for a potential opportunity, but you have to remind yourself
> don't have a *right* to know where *private* fiber is. It's not just the
> physic
Curious that so many routers owned by the same US company would all be
timing out on havanatimes.org with the server located in a former
eastern bloc nation. Oh well, it's back now. Cold war over.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> 81.169.144 belongs to a German company bas
81.169.144 belongs to a German company based in Berlin :)
Regards,
Jeff
On Mar 24, 2012, at 13:39, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> 81.169.145.156
from paris :)
rair.psg.com:/Users/randy> traceroute -a havanatimes.org
traceroute to havanatimes.org (81.169.145.156), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 [AS8151] 192.168.2.1 (192.168.2.1) 37.716 ms 79.322 ms 1.435 ms
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * [AS12670] reverse.completel.net (213.244.0.
>From this location it looks aweful... and I am on a sbcglobal line.
Console> traceroute -a havanatimes.org
...[INTERNAL]...
3 [AS0] adsl-99-181-143-254.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net (99.181.143.254)
19.510 ms 27.116 ms 19.387 ms
4 [AS7132] dist2-vlan60.klmzmi.ameritech.net (67.36.55.243) 19.482
Again, the common element in the timeouts seem to be sbcglobal _not_ comcast.
$ traceroute havanatimes.org
traceroute to havanatimes.org (81.169.145.156), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
3 108-85-132-3.lightspeed.austtx.sbcglobal.net (108.85.132.3)
27.394 ms 23.129 ms 23.454 ms
4 75.8.128.8
>From my own experience in my $DAYJOB, separating capital decisions at the L1
and L2 layers would end up adding cost. As mentioned elsewhere, GPON and
similar shared medium approaches do not lend themselves well to structural
separation. The most practical approach is dark fiber runs from the
cus
4 te-9-1-ur01.northeast.fl.jacksvil.comcast.net (68.86.168.61)
914.785 ms 916.728 ms 917.681 ms
5 te-0-5-0-0-ar02.southside.fl.jacksvil.comcast.net (68.86.168.69)
1018.016 ms .482 ms *
6 te-1-1-0-1-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.95.189)
1324.773 ms 852.297 ms 523.514 ms
7
How many munis serve the rural like they do the urban?
In the vast majority of cases the munis end up doing what ILECs only wish they
could do -- serve the most profitable customers.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 12
There's more than just the cost of fiber -- there's also the cost of
locating and taxes. Any maintenance if there's cuts and the costs if you
need to move the fiber for a project.
I've been many times where you were, frustrated that I didn't know the dark
fiber options for a potential opportunity
It's easy to ridicule the outliers, but the reality is that without USF the
majority of rural America that has Internet connectivity today wouldn't be
online. Yes, the price-cap carriers didn't do much in rural America, but
that's because there was little economic incentive to do so. Rate-of-retu
Reports from around the country are that traceroutes through sbcglobal
(in Austin, Houston and NJ) are failing with timeout to
havanatimes.org -- yet when we go in through TOR or Comcast or using
overseas services, their routing is just fine. What gives?
Right, but a better approach would have been for the FCC to say "If you don't
build fiber, you won't keep getting USF money."
The FCC failed to look at the public interest and got rolled by the RBOCs again.
Owen
On Mar 24, 2012, at 11:41 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Around the 2004 timeframe the RBO
Around the 2004 timeframe the RBOCs were having a discussion with the FCC,
basically saying that if the FCC did not apply unbundling to their fiber
builds they would build fiber, and that if the FCC did apply unbundling
rules they would not. The FCC wanted fiber deployed, so they withheld
applying
USF is more of a free for all get ISPs to build in 80% of the locations that
nobody would build in their right mind vs a mini monopoly model for l2 that I
equate this with.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong wrote:
We've been funding it for year
We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in
which it has been funded.
I suggest you look into USF in more detail.
Owen
On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Joseph Snyder wrote:
> Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to
> govt fun
For those who didn't Google it.
http://www.ftthcouncil.org/en/knowledge-center/case-studies/amsterdam-city-fiber-project-analysis
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Joseph Snyder wrote:
Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going
Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing
>> a fiber.
>> Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous
>> transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols.
>
> Hm... i'm thinking one transceiver might malfunction and get
> stuck/frozen i
Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to
govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly
that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my b
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:51 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Marshall Eubanks
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:16:59 -0700, George Herbert said:
The physics is not conducive to improving the situation a lot.
>
Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k.
It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and
most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a
mile or two long.
Marcel Plug wrote:
This article from arst
On 24/03/2012 00:32, George Bonser wrote:
> I suggested this once when it was decided that the latency from
> California to the UK was too high and that I should reduce it. The
> company wouldn't go for it, though.
I assume they had a practical alternative to your proposition? Perhaps
making lig
Hey $1.5Bn would get you less than half of Spotify right now, so it seems
like a good deal.
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP (Admin) - ISO
23 matches
Mail list logo
