> On Oct 18, 2021, at 14:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote:
>
> On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
>>Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost
>>with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and
>>improve the ISP customer's experience.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:47 PM Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:17 PM William Herrin wrote:
>> Since peering customers can only reach transit customers, it follows
>> that one of the customers in the equation is a fully-paid transit
>> customer. That fully paid customer's servic
On 10/18/21 07:02, Josh Luthman wrote:
Netflix, as an example, has even been willing to bear most of the cost
with peering or bringing servers to ISPs to reduce the ISP's costs and
improve the ISP customer's experience.
Netflix doesn't do those things because it cares about the ISP
On 10/18/21 1:51 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
I know that there are a lot of risks with hamfisted gubbermint
regulations. But even when StarLink turns the sky into perpetual
daylight and we get another provider, there are going to still be
painfully few choices, and too often the response to $EVIL
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
> On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>> I totally agree. 100%. Now we just have to agree on the regulation that
>> we're talking about.
>>
>> My idea of regulation in this context is to get rid of the monopoly/duopoly
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:17 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthew Petach
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl
> >> wrote:
> >> > Around here there are certain expectations if you
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl
>> wrote:
>> > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP
>> > Transit and other expectations if yo
On 10/18/21 12:22 PM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Hi,
On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control
a network owned and paid for by someone else.
Your vers
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 11:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
Hi,
> On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
>>
>> The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control
>> a network owned and paid for by someone else.
>>
>> Your version of "unreasonable" and my vers
" to give priority"
Assuming priority is given.
It's going to be very rare for their to be both only one ISP and no other ISPs
able to be motivated to be present.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
On 10/18/21 11:09 AM, Sabri Berisha wrote:
The term "network neutrality" was invented by people who want to control
a network owned and paid for by someone else.
Your version of "unreasonable" and my version of "unreasonable" are on the
opposite end of the spectrum. I think it is unreasonable
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:16 AM William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl
> wrote:
> > Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called
> IP Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The
> latter is not providing t
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 4:54 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> > I'd like to take a moment to point out the other problem with this
> > sentence, which is "antitrust agencies".
> >
> > One of the key aspects to both CDN providers and transit
>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 10:30 AM Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> Around here there are certain expectations if you sell a product called IP
> Transit and other expectations if you call the product paid peering. The
> latter is not providing the whole internet and is cheaper.
The problem with paid peer
- On Oct 18, 2021, at 1:40 AM, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
> Sabri Berisha wrote:
>
>> Therefore, anti-trust intervention is only considered in markets
>> where there are a relatively small amount of competitors and this
>> lack of competition harms the consumer, or
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 09:51, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> But, with settlement free peering between tier 1 ISPs, tier 2
> ISPs having transit/paid peering with a tier 1 ISP will receive
> routes from peers of the tier 1 ISP. There is transit traffic
> exchanged betwe
"at some point it just doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype."
There is A LOT of hype over increasing broadband speeds, so much so to the
point where immense oversubscription is the only practical way forward, then
people piss and moan that ISPs didn't build enough to keep up with non-exist
Imagine it's 2021. Over a decade ago the world started a transition from
captive audio broadcast media from a single source towards unicast
streaming from multiple sources. You operate an ISP network that was
designed for a past era and you have been slow to keep up with your
competitors or wit
Imagine it's 2008 and your AP is pushing out 3 mbps. Customers are all
happy. Suddenly, Netflix demands 10x what you're offering. Customers are
not happy.
Customers don't understand. People don't understand. There are a million
cogs in the machine and if the path of least resistance is to turn
Mark Tinka wrote:
Yes, but nobody cares about Layer 1 or Layer 2.
As you wrote:
You can't tell me that US$700 million being spent to build a > submarine cable
around a continent is something to scoff at.
you do care.
Look, I'm not saying the ITU are bad
FYI, I'm not arguing especiall
>
> Otherwise, CDN providers with their own backbone are free riders
> ignoring access costs.
>
I think the Pointy Hairs and Bean Counters would love it if they could
ignore all the monthly bills for the access costs that we generate.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 9:46 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830
On 10/18/21 14:16, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As copper and optical fiber for access politically belongs to ITU,
DSL and optical fiber standards of ITU are followed by the IETF
world.
Yes, but nobody cares about Layer 1 or Layer 2.
Once the road is built, all anyone remembers is the car I drove
Mark Tinka wrote:
As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality,
let me point out there are "International Telecommunication
Regulations", based on which network neutrality is discussed
by ITU.
And since when does the IETF world follow the ITU standards?
As copper and optical
On 10/18/21 10:11, Masataka Ohta wrote:
As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality,
let me point out there are "International Telecommunication
Regulations", based on which network neutrality is discussed
by ITU.
And since when does the IETF world follow the ITU standard
Sabri Berisha wrote:
Therefore, anti-trust intervention is only considered in markets
where there are a relatively small amount of competitors and this
lack of competition harms the consumer, or when one or more dominant
parties use their position to force smaller companies into
unreasonable com
Mark Tinka wrote:
What?
I will use my network for what I want my network to do for me. There
are no international rules about why a network must be built.
As you are seemingly requesting international legal formality,
let me point out there are "International Telecommunication
Regulations",
Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Neutral backbone providers don't peer with access/retail ISPs.
They sell transit to them.
FYI, that is called paid peering.
> Paid peering is not the same product as IP Transit. In general a
> packet never traverse two peering links because that would mean the
> middle
27 matches
Mail list logo
