On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Brett Glass wrote:
My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should
be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from
the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They wan
> https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=254 is the
> correct exchange for the old RMIX.
"CoreSite - Any2 Denver / Formerly RMIX" and 19 members. so a bit
small, 17 members not counting the host. but some players with oomph,
if they are real as opposed to some mpls hack. and swo
https://www.peeringdb.com/private/exchange_view.php?id=254 is the correct
exchange for the old RMIX.
Reid
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > The RMIX is alive and well.
>
> cool. web site? traffic? members?
>
>
(Yes, yes, I know, feeding the troll, etc.)
On Jul 13, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> We guarantee each subscriber a certain minimum capacity to the Internet
> exchange at 1850 Pearl Street
> in Denver… It’s a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building
> which I belie
> The RMIX is alive and well.
cool. web site? traffic? members?
On 2014-07-13 20:51, Randy Bush wrote:
We've never been asked to POP that location.
what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be
in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be
the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock.
is there a
> We've never been asked to POP that location.
what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be
in coresite and defunct. there is some "any2" exchange claiming to be
the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock.
is there actually a significant local exchange in
- Original Message -
> From: "Brett Glass"
Note that I misunderstood you to be the Verizon blog poster I started
this thread commenting on. My apology for that in a separate post,
but here are some replies that amount to "you are standing on the
same rock in the river they are". :-)
>
We've never been asked to POP that location. If I can, I will, just as my
team has POPed 15+ other locations this year alone.
Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. He's sent dozens of
harassing emails demanding payment and nothing else. I've offered to speak
to him directly but he h
I've apparently misread Brett Glass's initial post, thinking he was the
Verizon rep who wrote the blog post I copied in here; it's become clear
that he's not.
My apologies for the framing of my reply to him on the list earlier.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said:
>
> > 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and..
>
> And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from?
> (For example, if we provid
> It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building
> which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of
> fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the
> Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially
> equivalent to a presence a
- Original Message -
> From: na...@brettglass.com
> This is Brett Glass; I have been alerted to some of the responses to my
> message (which was cross-posted by a third party) and have temporarily
> joined the list to chime in. The following is my response to his
> message, edited slightly
At 07:32 PM 7/13/2014, Jima wrote:
I confess I might be splitting hairs, but what Internet exchange
exists at 1850 Pearl Street? The best I can ascertain is that
it's a Level3 datacenter, which doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing.
It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a
>> But before Netflix made a deal with Comcast, would you be making
>> the same request ?
> Yes. I have an e-mail trail dating back to November of last year in
> which I attempted to discuss this with Netflix. They were
> intransigent. They didn't believe that the views of a small ISP from
> Wyom
On 2014-07-13 17:00, Brett Glass wrote:
We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain
minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street
in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain
maximum duty cycle.
I confess I might be splitting hai
At 06:02 PM 7/13/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
But before Netflix made a deal with Comcast, would you be making
the same request ?
Yes. I have an e-mail trail dating back to November of last year in
which I attempted to discuss this with Netflix. They were
intransigent. They didn't believe that t
My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
additional money from them so as to cover *expenses that Netflix
should be covering*. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix
subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They
want to pay a fair price for their Internet t
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 05:33 PM 7/13/2014, Tom Hill wrote:
>
> By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all for
>> that dirt you're hurling...
>>
>
> Building new things often does involve digging up dirt. Unlike Netflix,
> we'd gladly pay
At 05:33 PM 7/13/2014, Tom Hill wrote:
By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all
for that dirt you're hurling...
Building new things often does involve digging up dirt. Unlike
Netflix, we'd gladly pay anyone who participates in the digging. ;-)
--Brett Glass
On 14/07/14 00:00, Brett Glass wrote:
ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in
short order.
By the way, don't think you're not going to have to pay us for all for
that dirt you're hurling...
These entrepreneurs, digging up dirt and depositing it everywhere. Don't
Dude. Netflix doesn't want you to do help its service.
Your customers want you to do that.
On Jul 13, 2014 4:03 PM, "Brett Glass" wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>
> >ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
> >the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, the
At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
>the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
>look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
My customers do not want me to "creatively" find ways to extract
MSO in the US, traffic from Akamai (who delivers the ESPN traffic) was up
about 30% vs. last Sunday at the same time. Overall it was kind of
negligible. It wasn't as high as it was for the USA vs. Germany match
since that one was during the week and not after working hours. I imagine
the majorit
On Jul 13, 2014 2:12 PM, "Mehmet Akcin" wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and
wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to
see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very
well be one of t
The Argentina semi-final on Thursday had us at about 300% of our regular
daytime peaks; other preceding games were closer to about 200%. We don't have
any residential connections, just business, so today's (weekend) game didn't
really register much.
In terms of other streamed events: The men
Hi
I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and wonder
how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to see people
who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This very well be one of
the biggest watched via Internet event of all the tim
A third option is to use a transparent caching box, so it caches what's seen.
At $20/Mbps I suspect all the popular vendors would find three year or less ROI.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Todd Lyons
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:17
Just an observation:
I've been on the internet since dirt was rocks.
It seems to me that one theme which has come up over and over and over
is that some new-ish technology demands more bandwidth than whatever
it was people were doing previously and as it popularizes people begin
fighting.
In th
At 11:17 AM 7/13/2014, Todd Lyons wrote:
Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of
shows pushed to it that may or may not be watched by any of Brett's
customers. Then the bandwidth he must use to preload that box is
large, much larger than the sum of the streams his
On July 13, 2014 at 11:42 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
>
> ahhh. so
>
>not government regulated == wild west
>
> got it
Let's not forget that the big players in all this have
cross-subsidized from huge, government-protected monopolies or
very-small-N oligopolies in cable, pho
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach
>> wrote:
>> Because that Netflix box is not an on-demand cache, it gets a bunch of
>> shows pushed to it that may or may not be watche
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Todd Lyons wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach
> wrote:
> >> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
> >> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
> >
> > I know I'm just a dumb troll, but
> > d
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:53 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
>> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
>
> I know I'm just a dumb troll, but
> don't you have the same bandwidth
> demands already from your users
>
Well,
I am sure they haven't gone out of business. They charge so much for cross
connects that it's impossible for them to go under. Besides the power is
still up on all our racks in their various facilities.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> Sorry for the list traffic but I am having a tough time get
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 9:09 AM, wrote:
> At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
>
> >How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
>
> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses.
I know I'm just a dumb troll, but
don't you have the same bandwidth
demand
So it sounds like your customers want to use the service being sold, but
you can't afford to service them due to the pricing they are being
charged...Sounds like you need to raise prices. While I haven't worked for
a rural wireless ISP, I have work for wired ISP's in the days of modems,
Large tran
> If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones,
> will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
I call hogwash.ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
look at creative
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 12:54 PM, mcfbbqroast . wrote:
> [...]
>
> Let's cut the crap, Verizon is not irritated by Netflix's policies. They're
> irritated by Netflix and friends cutting into their far more lucrative
> content market.
>
>
True--otherwise, it would make more sense for
Verizon to si
Sorry for the list traffic but I am having a tough time getting a sales
person from Equinix to return my call. I have called two and they didn¹t
seem to eager to even talk. I tried their form on the web-site and it¹s
broken.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Justin
--
Justin Wilson
http:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Miles Fidelman
wrote:
> Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> Right now, peering agreements are the wild west.
>
no. those days passed in the last century. you just don't know them.
but then, you are not an operator so no surprise.
what you are seeing,
At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
>How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix
would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting
from subscribers. We can't raise o
Ironically, I did this with my Usenet news feed (which back then
was the big bandwidth hog) 20 years ago. Mark Lottor set it up. I
understand that someone has just been granted a dubious patent on
the same technique, despite the well known prior art.
--Brett Glass
At 08:45 AM 7/13/2014, Aled
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 18:19:32 -0400, Barry Shein said:
> What hair are you trying to split? That you were using a shared
> address? Are people behind a NAT wall not on the internet?
I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine
that a user on The World was more "on the
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 16:02:57 -0400, Joly MacFie said:
> 1) when does a terminating network become a transit network, and..
And what if "terminating" versus "transit" depends on where you observe from?
(For example, if we provide transit to a downstream, but only announce a
route to one of our ups
iBeam tried to do that. If only they had used something else than Windows
Server and other Microsoft products to do the caching.
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:45 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
> On 13 July 2014 06:39, Steven Tardy wrote:
>
> > (OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30T
On 13 July 2014 06:39, Steven Tardy wrote:
> (OK, Keep 100mbps for Netflix to pre-populate, 100mbps is 30TB/month)
> (Now I'm curious how many GB/month Netflix pre-populates, hmmm)
>
Shame Netflix can't fill their appliances using really cheap, bulk, one-way
satellite bandwidth which is useless
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 7/12/2014 9:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
More like "not civilized == wild west.
Although as a native Westerner, I thing that is still an unfair slur.
Well, ok, maybe not the old west, but some of the current shenaniga
Randy Bush wrote:
ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west
at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet,
usually steps in with a good screed on industry self-regulation.
yeah John, where
On 13/07/2014 01:22, na...@brettglass.com wrote:
> "Open Connect" is not, in fact, a CDN. Nor is it "peering." It is merely a set
> of policies for direct connection to ISPs, and for placing servers in ISPs'
> facilities, that is as favorable as possible in every way to Netflix. It
> costs
> Net
FYI, Geoff fixed the problem
Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2014, 22:51:43 schrieb Karsten Thomann:
> I've asked Geoff Huston to check, but no answer until now...
>
> Am Samstag, 12. Juli 2014, 14:11:13 schrieb Jay Ashworth:
> > Well, probably 512k, but...
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > > F
51 matches
Mail list logo
