> On Oct 10, 2021, at 13:21 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/10/21 22:13, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after
>> about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My
>> ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 13:18 , Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base
>> problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't
>> want to charge their customers what i
>> (in the same way that corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do),...
>
>
> Many a company pays corporate tax, which is separate from the income tax they
> pay for compensation to their staff.
>
> Of course, YMMV depending on where you live.
That’s irrelevant to what he is saying.
Wh
> On Oct 10, 2021, at 12:08 , Doug Barton wrote:
>
> On 10/1/21 7:45 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>> The reason Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, e.t.c., all built their own
>> global backbones is because of this nonsense that SK Broadband is trying to
>> pull with Netflix. At some point, the co
> On Oct 7, 2021, at 06:49 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
> William Herrin wrote:
>
This is quite common to tie an underlying service announcement to BGP
announcements in an Anycast or similar environment.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is a commonly seen mistake with anycast.
>> You don't know wh
On Sunday, 10 October, 2021 14:21, Mark Tinka wrote:
>They are looking at the aggregate Gbps or Tbps of traffic that
>BigContent is seeking to deliver across their network, for "no $$".
This is blatantly incorrect. The bits were payed for by the requestor.
BigContent does not "send bits" to n
Netflix has programs for which many ISPs - even smaller are able to
build a cache system.
This may help the ISP who filed suit here -
That being said - Our Consultancy has helped a number of smaller ISPs
build using the Open Connect options - however for many they cannot
justify the want from
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 7:18 am, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base
>> problem is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't
>> want to charge their customers what it
* do...@dougbarton.us (Doug Barton) [Sun 10 Oct 2021, 23:44 CEST]:
First, I'm not saying "should." I'm saying that given the market
economics, having the content providers who use "a lot" of bandwidth
do something to offset those costs to the ISPs might be the
best/least bad option. Whether "so
- On Oct 10, 2021, at 2:42 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Hi,
> And for the record, not only have I never worked for an ISP, I was
> saying all the way back in the late '90s that the oversubscription
> business model (which almost always includes punishing users who
> actually use
[some snipping below]
Also just to be clear, these are my own opinions, not necessarily shared
by any current or former employers.
On 10/10/21 12:31 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 10/10/21 21:08, Doug Barton wrote
Given that issue, I have some sympathy for eyeball networks wanting to
charge cont
On 10/10/21 22:13, Michael Thomas wrote:
Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that
after about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most
cases. My ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our
needs fine and have never run into bandwidth c
On 10/10/21 22:10, Geoff Huston wrote:
I have to agree with Doug Barton's earlier observation is that the base problem
is that the ISPs are using a flawed business model and they don't want to
charge their customers what it really costs to provide them with high speed
access, nor do they w
On 10/10/21 12:57 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote:
If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply
based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's
called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses
that gamble and lo
> On 11 Oct 2021, at 6:33 am, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> […] Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all caved to SK's demands:
>
> I will note that my $previous_employer was a top-10 web content provider
> that did *not* pay SK Broadband. Not all the content providers caved
> to SKB.
>
The situa
On 10/10/21 21:33, Matthew Petach wrote:
If you sell a service for less than it costs to provide, simply
based on the hopes that people won't actually *use* it, that's
called "gambling", and I have very little sympathy for businesses
that gamble and lose.
You arrived at the crux of the issue
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:12 PM Doug Barton wrote:
> On 10/1/21 7:45 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > The reason Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, e.t.c., all built their
> > own global backbones is because of this nonsense that SK Broadband is
> > trying to pull with Netflix. At some point, the con
On 10/10/21 21:08, Doug Barton wrote:
Except that Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon all caved to SK's demands:
"The popularity of the hit series "Squid Game" and other offerings
have underscored Netflix's status as the country's second-largest data
traffic generator after Google's YouTube,
On 10/1/21 7:45 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
The reason Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, e.t.c., all built their
own global backbones is because of this nonsense that SK Broadband is
trying to pull with Netflix. At some point, the content folk will get
fed up, and go build it themselves. What an o
19 matches
Mail list logo
