What value of shares in major telecommunications companies would be
considered adequate for such a role?
On 2 Sep 2014 09:30, "Grant Ridder" wrote:
> If you have ties to Grand Ayatollah, it would probably be an automatic
> acceptance into the position.
>
> Grant
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On S
Ladies and gentlemen, we have our mysterious backhoe driver.
Who would've known?
On 1 Sep 2014 17:37, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
> Cause it's a long weekend, and why shouldn't it be whackier than normal.
>
> - Forwarded Message -
> > From: "PRIVACY Forum mailing list"
> > To: privacy-l...@vo
Op is funny. Best to laugh and smile.
On 19/08/2014 6:43 AM, "Jeroen van Aart" wrote:
> Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>>
>> -Original Message-
Contact for God, please reach out to me offlist.
Regards,
-AS666 NOC
>>> --
>>
>>
>> ASN 666
Gah,
While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, AT&T shouldn't be
charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s.
Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides,
when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major
Po
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
and effectively.
I'm a fan of either:
Dark fibre to every house.
Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISP
e:
> On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
>
> > This would be my humble suggestion:
> >
> > - lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
> > default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
> > terminal, with gigabit
This would be my humble suggestion:
- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines
provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs
and POTS.
- lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand
over to ISPs (think 96 G
Wait, I'm confused?
Of the ISPs can't handle 5mbps of traffic when a customer wants to watch
TV, why the hell are they selling 100mbps plans!?!
Answer that with something other than "because the ISPs more lucrative
content business is threatened by Netflix"?
Stop trying to hide what this so obvi
Instead of over subscription ratios think about what each user is doing.
Let's say one 1080p Netflix stream per customer, that's 6 mbps each.
Perhaps provision for that and you'll have plenty.
On 20/07/2014 11:06 AM, "Frank Bulk" wrote:
> Thanks for sharing Ben, that's 450 kbps/sub at peak time
Brett,
Why would Netflix pay your ISP?
You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP
addresses.
What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the
network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power.
This is the true risk. Of Netflix is als
I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But
that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix
should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison.
NOT CACHING with Netflix
- up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a
One thing I've noted from those that support Verizon in this thread is that
they often talk about Netflix's policy being unfair on small ISPs. Verizon
is not a small ISP. Small ISPs seem happy peering with Netflix when they
can (in fact they seem happy peering with anyone given there costs of
trans
12 matches
Mail list logo
