2014 9:05 PM
> To: Frank Bulk
> Cc: Naslund, Steve; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>
> Since a second build-out is impractical (if not actually impossible) and
> they don't
> sell UNEs, they are, in fact, pretty much exempt from
gt;
> -Original Message-
> From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
> To: Frank Bulk
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>
> Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbu
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Naslund"
> You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that
> last drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't
> usually want installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even
> light a building unless there
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:56 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that last
> drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't usually want
> installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even light a building
> unless
You are right but that is usually how it works with fiber because that last
drop to the home is a pretty expensive piece that you don't usually want
installed until it is needed. The LECS usually don't even light a building
unless there is a service that requires it. I was trying to make the p
stal on the
> corner and cross my one acre lot with it?
>
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:25 PM
> To: NANOG
> Subject: Re: Level 3
Message-
> From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
> To: Frank Bulk
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>
> Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network el
l never
> do that and therefore the last mile can never be a free market.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:54 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Naslund"
> Thinking about this again, let's take Jay at his word that he can make
> a "passing" for $700-800.
Let's not.
I was quoting vendors who had themselves been quoted by other NANOGers.
Whether those other NANOGers had *paid* that price is unc
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> [...]
> The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
> have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to
> maximize the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200 a
> month TV/vo
u have to direct bury enough cable to reach the pedestal on the corner
and cross my one acre lot with it?
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:25 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Intern
line is that if you can get a
residential customer to pay even $700 construction charge very often, I will be
impressed.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 12:25 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Naslund"
> What do you mean by average monthly bill? That is the issue here. The
> average monthly bill includes the services you are getting. In the
> Chicago area a fiber optic access circuit unbundled from the imcumbent
> carrier to a competitive car
- Original Message -
> From: "Bob Evans"
> Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county
> taxes on chairs, Obama care, accountants and time required.
$ enable
# conf t
(conf)# Obamacare
^ command not understood
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
On 03/23/2014 11:08 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition.
This is a quagmire;but it boils down to "if the FCC says they're exempt,
then they're exempt and have a 'rural monopoly'" (there's a lot of
caselaw and a number of FCC Report and Orders (and further
On 24 March 2014 10:47, Joe Greco wrote:
>> Here in Illinois, we have been paying for the construction of our tollway in
>> perpetuity. When it was originally built the state promised to remove the
>> tolls as soon as construction costs were recovered. We are still waiting
>> and will be fore
> The economic reality is that if I build out an expensive infrastructure I
> have to pile on as many high priced services as possible to order to maximize
> the revenue from it. A customer who does not balk at a $200 a month
> TV/voice/Internet service is not going to be happy getting a bill
On Monday, March 24, 2014 04:26:11 AM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> If you are going to try to do a fiber build out to the
> home, what would be the monthly cost of just the cable
> if I cannot sell services on it and is anyone will the
> pay the much. If I have to pay something like say $40 a
> month
of competition is different.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled networ
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:08 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition. Some areas are
effectively exempt
nt.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:16 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Many rural LECs are not required to provide unbundled network elements. As
a
[mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:08 PM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition. Some areas are
effectively exempt from facilities-based (i.e. wireline
ainst RLECs, as well as satellite providers. I'm not aware of any
exclusivity.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 9:00 PM
To: Joe Greco
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
4 1:08 PM
>To: David Miller
>Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
>> ... In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you that I
>> paid the LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to sell
> >DSL service at around ten times that cost. I am sure the LEC was not
>>making money at the $4 a month and I know I could not fund a build out for
>>
>> We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along
>> with th= e services they sell. That is my point. They are able to
> >spread the costs= out based on the profitable services they sell.
>Okay.
>> If they were not able to =
> >sell us services I am not sure they could a
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
> gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
> (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean?
Wouldn't You Like To Know?
drive slow...
Pau
On 3/22/2014 12:24 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
It's my understanding and experience that most gov't jurisdictions will give
CLECs and other telecommunication providers access to the RoW -- generally
speaking it's not exclusive to ILECs or MSOs. Now the challenge may be
finding room in the existing RoW
> Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
> pay a lot more for much less performance.
stateside consumer internet is a third world country ruled by robber
barons supported by a corrupt government.
skip the politics and hyperbole and judge by the bottom line. at home
* snasl...@medline.com (Naslund, Steve) [Fri 21 Mar 2014, 17:00 CET]:
I see no reason why the US model would not work in any market economy.
Why would market economies switch to the US model? Consumers there
pay a lot more for much less performance.
-- Niels.
the challenges
are not typically politically or "regulatorily" motivated.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Eric Wieling [mailto:ewiel...@nyigc.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Make the reg
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:18 AM, TGLASSEY wrote:
> I want to ask you folks something...
>
> How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of data
> gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection Sites
> (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean>?
>
> T
I want to ask you folks something...
How do you as the people operating the network think two exabytes of
data gets pushed across your networks to each of the PRISM Collection
Sites (daily) with no one noticing... Know what I mean>?
Todd Glassey
On 3/21/2014 6:54 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On
ldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:54 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>
> *too old, failing memory and all, I'll have to go read up on "natural
> monopoly"--I can not think of one that does not require regulation and
> force of arms to exist.
>
>
>
l never do that
and therefore the last mile can never be a free market.
-Original Message-
From: Larry Sheldon [mailto:larryshel...@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 9:54 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
*too old, failing memory and all,
On 3/21/2014 9:13 AM, Sholes, Joshua wrote:> How do you get around the
problem of natural monopolies, then?
My strongly held belief is that if the "natural" monopoly* becomes
oppressive somebody in their garage will find another way, and absent
regulation and force of arms available to the "na
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
>> charge=20
>>> for maintenance as a MRC?
>>
>> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then =
> charge=20
> > for maintenance as a MRC?
>
> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone =
> building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make
On Mar 21, 2014, at 12:13 , Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
>> for maintenance as a MRC?
>
> I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
> build
On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> Why wouldn't you instead charge for the build out as a NRC and then charge
> for maintenance as a MRC?
I for one would be willing to bear a high NRC start-up cost for someone
building fiber to my home. Not everyone would make that tradeoff. I
> We don't know because the service provider rolls that cost up along with th=
> e services they sell. That is my point. They are able to spread the costs=
> out based on the profitable services they sell.
Okay.
> If they were not able to =
> sell us services I am not sure they could afford t
On Mar 21, 2014, at 2:08 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
> How come no one ever asks if competition is required?
I think the issue here is there is competition, but those you are seen as
competing with are in a different strata providing the same service.
eg: Cellular data competes with DSL/DOCSIS/F
On Friday 21 March 2014 09:13:28 Naslund, Steve wrote:
> ... In fact, having been a service provider I can tell you
> that I paid the LEC about $4 a month for a copper pair to your house to
> sell DSL service at around ten times that cost. I am sure the LEC was not
making money at the $4 a mont
Mike."
> Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
>
> Technica
>
> On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote:
>
> |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> |> The sol
.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:07 AM
> To: Naslund, Steve
> Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
>
> On Fri, Mar
On Friday, March 21, 2014 05:59:54 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> So, as far as the government or Wall Street funding the
> build out of the commercial Internet, that is not what
> happened.
Lots of terrestrial and submarine optical fibre was built in
the late 90's, and much of it has either gone un
that price.
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:07 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> What do you mean by average monthly bill?
What is the average monthly (non-subsidized) access cost that your
friends and family pay each month?
-Jim P.
right).
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:01 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:46:13 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> First question to
-Original Message-
From: Jim Popovitch [mailto:jim...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 10:15 AM
To: Naslund, Steve
Cc: Sholes, Joshua; Larry Sheldon; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:30:45PM +, Sholes, Joshua wrote:
> >http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
> >
> >This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
> >recent developments.
> >
> >We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
>
Well, don't forget the labor, taxes, business licenses fees, county taxes
on chairs,
Obama care, accountants and time required.
Bob Evans
CTO
Bob Evans
CTO
Do you need IPv4 space to lease, space you can use until IPv6 is the
standard?
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve
> wrot
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building infrastructure but
> not selling the services on top of it. Remember Global Crossing? You are
> asking one company to put up all the capital expense and then try to recover
> it
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:25:09 PM Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Nice idea, too bad no one can make any money on building
> infrastructure but not selling the services on top of
> it. Remember Global Crossing? You are asking one
> company to put up all the capital expense and then try
> to recover
>http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
>
>This boooklet is now maybe ~5-10 years old so it doesn't reflect more
>recent developments.
>
>We *let* the monopolies (er, duopolies in some cases) get away with the
>regulatory and legislative manipulation that led to the current outcome,
Th
> How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
> we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
> all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
> my house?
>
> IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the l
>>How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
>>we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
>>all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to my
house?
We already did it. The Telecommunications Act all
How do you get around the problem of natural monopolies, then? Or should
we be moving to a world where, say, a dozen or more separate companies are
all running fiber or coax on the poles on my street in an effort to get to
my house?
IMHO, the only way to get real competition on the last mile is
On 3/20/2014 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require
"regulation".
"regulation" prevents "competition". That is why people want regulation.
Look at this thread at the people who do not want to be competed-with at
L1, for example.
--
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong "competition" will require
"regulation".
Original message
From: "Mike."
Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on
Technica
60 matches
Mail list logo
