On Aug 28, 2011, at 3:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:32:00PM -0400, Patrick W.
> Gilmore wrote:
>> Why is that any different than forcing businesses to explain which links are
>> paid? Or any other internal data? Private businesses are private. Th
In a message written on Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 09:32:00PM -0400, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
> Why is that any different than forcing businesses to explain which links are
> paid? Or any other internal data? Private businesses are private. Their
> relationships with other private businesses are p
On Aug 27, 2011, at 8:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:35 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
>> And the customers still don't care. They just care _that_ it affected
>> them - at least during the problem. Although one can hope they care
>> enough to change their beha
On 8/27/11 5:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:35 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
>> And the customers still don't care. They just care _that_ it
>> affected them - at least during the problem. Although one can
>> hope they care enough to change their behavior afte
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 13:56:35 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> And the customers still don't care. They just care _that_ it affected
> them - at least during the problem. Although one can hope they care
> enough to change their behavior afterward.
And yet, people still single-home to Tier-1s. Go
What are thoughts on public disclosure limited to capacity constraints?
There is ample business reason for making the terms of specific
interconnects private. On the other hand, knowing definitively that
{mon,du}opoly broadband provider A is running its connections to
transit provider B hot could
On Aug 26, 2011, at 11:10 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:32:00 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
>> Next time Cogent de-peers someone, customers do not care who was being
>> more reasonable. They care that their links are broken.
>
> Wouldn't that mostly affect people who are silly enough to
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:32:00 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Next time Cogent de-peers someone, customers do not care who was being
> more reasonable. They care that their links are broken.
Wouldn't that mostly affect people who are silly enough to single-home to a
Tier-1 that
gets involved in
> I have yet to find a down side to this sort of sunshine. I'd wecome
> anyone who thinks its a bad idea to educate me.
Why is that any different than forcing businesses to explain which links are
paid? Or any other internal data? Private businesses are private. Their
relationships with othe
In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 05:40:43PM -0400, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
> Yes, Above.Net broke the original peering-ratio fight that way. Thank you
> for that. Too bad it didn't last.
I forgot to write back when you first posted this, but the recent
follow ons reminded me...
There might be something in the recent CITI report
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=2352
j
:
> On Aug 19, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> > [*] Anyone know what %-age of North American users have multiple choices
> for real broadband (e.g. > 1.5 Mbps, or even > 4 Mbps as the FCC now defi
On Aug 19, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> [*] Anyone know what %-age of North American users have multiple choices for
> real broadband (e.g. > 1.5 Mbps, or even > 4 Mbps as the FCC now defines it)?
> I searched, but can't find it. I can find how many people have > 4 Mbps
> ava
On Aug 19, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:29:05PM -0400, Adam
> Rothschild wrote:
>> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
>
> I like to see Level 3 arguing this with the regulators. AboveNet
> persued this line of thi
In a message written on Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 04:29:05PM -0400, Adam Rothschild
wrote:
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021703819
I like to see Level 3 arguing this with the regulators. AboveNet
persued this line of thinking with a number of ISP's in the late
1990's with some s
14 matches
Mail list logo