I believe they just attach it as a regular data device on whatever data
plan you pick. It's known as Verizon HomeFusion:
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/homefusion/hf/main.do
-Mike
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Do you happen to know the rates or where I can f
Do you happen to know the rates or where I can find more information on the
offering?
From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 1:12 AM
To: Ryan Finnesey
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: VZW - fixed wireless services?
Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon
Yes, they are. At least out here in Silicon Valley they are.
-Mike
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
> Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed
> wireless services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco
> but I assume that w
Does anyone know if Verizon is using its LTE network to offer fixed wireless
services? I know Sprint was working on WiMAX hardware with cisco but I assume
that was canceled when Sprint started moving to LTE.
Cheers
Ryan
The presentation submission period for NANOG 62 is still open, although the
deadline is fast approaching. It's not too late to join what's shaping up to
be a great program!
Thanks,
Greg
--
Greg Dendy
Chair, Program Committee
North American Network Operator Group (NANOG)
On Jun 16, 2014,
Oh I agree Brett. My point was for flecher. We lost business once the
government school discount happened. Its an example to what you speak
ofall the time red tape overhead designed to give to LEcs business.
And one of my companies is a CLEC.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> I'll just say that we'
- Original Message -
> From: "Brett Glass"
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines cou
Any ISP can tap into Erate funding. We are a WISP and lots of our
school customers get Erate funding/discounts.
On 7/15/2014 8:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
i
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take
to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd
need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned
telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically
suppor
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
internet services...pretty much just for LECs.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with
> everythi
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.
>> What conversations have you had with them?...
>
> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with
everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of
becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural
ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At
At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly
south. What conversations have you had with them?...
At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate
several times higher than either of our existing upstreams fo
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's
why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs beco
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>> Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>> much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>> an outrageous rate). You have a li
>
>
> The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the
> following:
>
> * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then
> denying us the resources we need to fulfill them;
>
> * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than
> all
Hi All,
Anybody has idea about probable issue in Network infrastructure for siebel
application performance and availability issue.
What are the checks to be perform in network devices for network
confirmation.
Regards,
Pradip Vaghela
+91-9320064180
Brett,
You've more or less accurately described the reality of the situation.
Please feel free to proceed with the "dealing with it" suggestion that I
also made as part of the post you responded to. :)
Good luck,
Doug
On 07/15/2014 01:42 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug
At 02:16 PM 7/15/2014, Joly MacFie wrote:
>And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth
>for a robust streaming connection.
This is only true if the connection is of poor quality and dropped packets lead
to regular 50% cuts in the data rate. Most users (and th
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote:
Just off the top of my head
More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows.
How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be
able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different
programm
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines
If you want to join the millions of comments, apparently the deadline
has been extended to midnight, July 18th.[1]
Eliot
[1]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/fcc-extends-comment-period-for-net-neutrality-1405449739
On 7/15/14, 10:02 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> http://internetassociation.org/
http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf
Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried
writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty.
Official comment period ends today.
Brett, you are missing my point. I am no expert on wireless links and the
equipment I pointed at might be garbage. But you have a backhaul problem
that you need to solve. If not that equipment, then something else.
You are balking up the wrong tree with Netflix. People want high bandwidth
video an
Brett Glass writes:
> At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
> >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
>
> Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
>
> Estimates of the maximum bandwi
On 07/15/2014 12:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maxim
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
>> that's your call,
>>
>
> We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
> mentioned, users can get
This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I
know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of
them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is
Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge
sets.
-Blake
On Tue, Jul 15, 20
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combi
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
that's your call,
We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
is high, so going for a
Re: Net Neutrality
In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the
internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content
provider -- have failed.
For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and
on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
>> AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
>>
>
> Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we
> rej
At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version,
because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data
sheet. It doe
Brett,
You should investigate TVWS (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well
in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data
rate challenges.
The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of
unlicensed space a
>
> >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
> >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/
>
> That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade.
> Most of
> our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do kn
At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any?
It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again,
I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high
backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amoun
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I think what will really drive everything is the
> market forces. You either provide what your
> end user wants or you go out of business.
Hi Steve,
Barrier to entry tends to negate "market forces."
I dislike Verizon. Their FiOS service
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>
> The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of
>> money.
>>
>
> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And
> caching is the best way. Netfl
If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on
that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring
Netflix traffic to your customers.
Matthew Kaufman
On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are econom
On 7/13/2014 12:54 PM, na...@brettglass.com wrote:
However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an
ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the
solution
is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the
streams in
encrypted form, passi
On 07/15/2014 07:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses:
> If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump
> them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with
> a large internet facing presence and usual
On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
> shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there
were specific costs asso
Steve,
I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, "Yes,
a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot
of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural
areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyL
On 15 July 2014 17:03, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
> >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
> >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place w
Which is their perfect right as a business. If their service starts sucking
because of it, they will not be in business long. The end user will quickly
figure out the Netflix sucks no matter who your Internet provider is and poof,
they will be gone. Market forces at work.
Steve
>>The name o
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are
near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a
LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of
carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in r
I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett. The reason the cost goes
down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed
address by address, they are managed as a single entity. ARIN has almost the
same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24
At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least
amount of money.
I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree.
And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.
--Brett Glass
On 15 July 2014 04:51, Brett Glass wrote:
> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as
> a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)
In my book (As a network operator in the UK) Netflix's proposed
arran
At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
>flatrate for USD 500 per mo
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no
reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason
for
Sorry to be cold about this but as high speed connectivity becomes more
necessity than luxury, the market will still react. For example, I could move
to the top of a mountain with no electric however most of us would not. If I
was buying a home and I could not get decent high speed Internet,
I am just guessing but you probably have not been in the service provider
space. Peering in my experience has always required an ASN and BGP as a
pre-requisite. That is because all service providers use BGP communities and
various other mechanisms to control these connections. Sure you could
If you are a multi-homed end user and you feel that a BGP configuration for
that is a big management nightmare then you probably should not be running BGP.
It would take me somewhere less than 15 minutes to set this up with two
carriers and unless the carrier's are at drastically different tier
In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually
beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually
AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some
kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for fu
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
> I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the
> Apache 2.0
> license. Some of you may be interested.
>
> https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/
>
(as a contributor and user externally of this code)
excellent :)
> This i
Reality has a well-known liberal bias
-Blake
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson
wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
>>>
>>> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
>>
>>
>> Well that escalated quickly.
>
>
> You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. So
On 15 July 2014 06:21, Brett Glass wrote:
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
>
Ah but they are charging you f
Matt,
IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point
of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows
for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently
confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and i
On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's
just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm
wasn't intended for debate,
> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Graham Donaldson wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
>
>> (youtube was
>> a grand, failed, experiment)
>>
>>
> It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and
On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
(youtube was
a grand, failed, experiment)
It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch
Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal
amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
But this is
regarding content, I’m not sure you and I live in the same media space, but I
live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote "57 CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)”
reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. granted
that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they cert
63 matches
Mail list logo
