On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
>> > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have
Remembering the things (which had to do with network operations) that I
go banned for.
One wonders why I felt bad about it,
NANOG = NANAE us a slur on NANAE.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrator
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Corey Touchet
wrote:
> What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint
> path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves
> that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side
> by side.
Bee
What I would like to see is someone who sets up a VPN that has an endpoint
path that¹s the same as NetFlix. If their streaming performance improves
that would be very telling. Heck you could use 2 machines and do a side
by side.
However I doubt Level3 is going to sit there and lie about their
c
"Without comment" being a load of crap, as the subject is comment.
Because when I think integrity, I think sock puppets.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:25:47PM +, McElearney, Kevin wrote:
> Performance is a two way street (as are shakedowns)
"It takes two to lie, Marge: one to lie, and one to listen."
- Matt
The devil is in the details. Ken Florance
(http://blog.netflix.com/2014/04/the-case-against-isp-tolls.html)
paints a different picture in his blog, for example.
As a manager at Comcast, can you refer the people on this list to any
ISPs who do not have a history of congestion into your network? T
On 7/29/14, 12:45 PM, "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"
wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
>
>> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
>> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
>> bigger role delivering yo
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014 14:33:28 -, "McElearney, Kevin" said:
> (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
> your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
> bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If
> eyecandystore has inter
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" wrote:
>> if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
>
> While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore
> decisi
It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers,
especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of
your incoming traffic. That you're posting in "hypotheticals" does
not mask your true messaging.
Drive Slow,
Paul Wall
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McEl
On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" wrote:
>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>than throttling me to (x),I consider
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Jim Richardson
wrote:
> I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
> eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
> that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
> than throttling me to (x)
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:38:03PM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any
> >reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix. Right
> >through this very minute and beyond.
>
>
I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest
>> otherwise...
>
> This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense conservatism of
> a certain part of the I
On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
There is nothing new under the sun, no matter how much you may protest
otherwise...
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy that reflects the intense
conservatism of a certain part of the Internet establishment. I'm
inclined to go for new services, new n
Owen, your mother should have told you that you need to play nice if you
want the other children to play with you.
On 7/28/14, 12:02 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the eyeballs to
On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any
reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix.
Right through this very minute and beyond.
It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe
donate
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. [...], the
> Internet will shift from a tool for
> reading web sites and watching occasional cat videos to a system whose main
> job (from the perspective of traffic) is video s
On Jul 27, 2014, at 10:53 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
>
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
>
> " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for
> interconn
I don't have much to add to this discussion, but...
Richard Bennett writes:
> I'm also not enthusiastic about relying on government programs
> to upgrade infrastructure to fiber of some random spec, because the
> entry of government into this market suppresses investments by
> independent fiber
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the
> eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge providers to
> use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC to impose under
> the guise
Astroturfing doesn’t require a fake organization, just fraudulent use of an
organization claiming to be grass roots.
I guarantee you that the majority of the communities represented by those
organizations probably don’t even understand the issue. Of those that do, I
suspect that if you polled t
It's hard to see a revolution when you're in the middle of it. As
consumers transition from watching multicast TV on the networks'
schedule past time-shifting and on to VoD, the traffic demands on the
infrastructure will grow by 25 - 40 times. Similarly, the Internet will
shift from a tool for
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
Yeah, because when I pay UPS on my corporate account to pick up a
package in California and deliver it to me in Virginia, the guy at the
pickup in California is asking UPS
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Dorian Kim wrote:
>
>
> This most likely won’t happen unless it becomes some sort of an
> international treaty obligation and even then it would end up in courts for
> a long time. Leaving aside data privacy requirements many carriers have,
> most companies guard
On Jul 28, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The data set suffers three flaws:
>
> Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly.
>
>> 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet.
On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet.
>>
>> Traffic flows on the Internet is a different survey of a different thing.
>
> He didn't mean "TCP Flows", I don't think; he was simply -- as I
> understood him -- ta
- Original Message -
> From: "Bill Woodcock"
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > The data set suffers three flaws:
>
> Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly.
>
> > 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the
> > Inte
On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:28 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> The data set suffers three flaws:
Depending on your point of view, a lot more than three, undoubtedly.
> 1. It is not representative of the actual traffic flows on the Internet.
There are an infinite number of things it’s not representative
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> However, I can say what global prevailing business practice
> is, since I’ve actually surveyed and quantified it:
>
> Each network [..] pays their own way to the IXP of their
> choice that the other party is present at, each network
> receiv
Paul WALL wrote:
route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access
providers, including the large ones; press releases related to
"OpenConnect" imply that no money is passing hands.
You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does
Richard Bennett disclose who is
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Can you say more about what you've done to "survey and quantify" prevailing
practices?
https://www.pch.net/resources/papers//peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf
We’ll do another one in the run-up to the next OECD
route-views will confirm that Netflix peer with a number of access
providers, including the large ones; press releases related to
"OpenConnect" imply that no money is passing hands.
You'll note that, in spite of his wordy replies, never once does
Richard Bennett disclose who is funding him and AEI
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
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:53:51PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
>
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
>
> " Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a
> toll for i
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
>
> http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
You are aware that there are, probably, thousands of eyeball networks
doing this right now,
Now that's more than a little disingenuous. Until a week or so ago,
pretty much all of the FIOS plans were asynchronous - a 15meg down/5meg
up network was not designed for web browsing and email.
For that matter, Verizon is currently billing their lowest speed FIOS
plan, at 50up/50down as "St
In fact Netflix is asking to connect to eyeball networks for free:
http://blog.netflix.com/2014/03/internet-tolls-and-case-for-strong-net.html
" Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll
for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or
intermediar
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:39 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Can you say more about what you've done to "survey and quantify" prevailing
> practices?
https://www.pch.net/resources/papers//peering-survey/PCH-Peering-Survey-2011.pdf
We’ll do another one in the run-up to the next OECD carrier interconnec
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 09:08:17PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for
> the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge
> providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the
> FCC to impose under th
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 08:59:14PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> Maybe it would help if you tried to address the issues in a serious
> way instead of just trying to be cute.
I will when you will, "poopy head".
- Matt
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
The essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network
and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking
the FCC to impose?
I won’t presume to speak for Netflix, and I
On Jul 27, 2014, at 9:08 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> The essence of NN is for the eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the
> network and for edge providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is
> asking the FCC to impose?
I won’t presume to speak for Netflix, and I won’t presume to
I don't think it's conflation, Joly, since the essence of NN is for the
eyeballs to pay for the entire cost of the network and for edge
providers to use it for free; isn't that what Netflix is asking the FCC
to impose under the guise of "strong net neutrality?" Professor van
Schewick is pretty
Maybe it would help if you tried to address the issues in a serious way
instead of just trying to be cute.
Just a thought...
RB
On 7/27/14, 8:52 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" wrote:
On
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> > > It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that
> > > net neutrality is a de facto
I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free
walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to
benefit, but I could be wrong
On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> > It's
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that
> net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money
> from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of
> super-heavy Internet use
Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful. I somehow doubt
that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out
against NN at the last minute.
The EFF did recently address the issue.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide
I prefer the term "poopy head" because it's so much more sophisticated.
RB
On 7/27/14, 5:39 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Bennett wrote:
This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf"
allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understandin
On Sun, 27 Jul 2014, Richard Bennett wrote:
This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf" allegation
is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what the term means:
individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes an organization.
Individuals can be p
So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony
organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press and Public
Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit?
Given their long history, I think this is a bit of a stretch.
It's more plausible that NAACP a
Now, this is astroturfing.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/180781/leading-civil-rights-group-just-sold-out-net-neutrality
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Richard Bennett
wrote:
> This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf"
> allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack
This is one of the more clueless smears I've seen. The "astroturf"
allegation is hilarious because it shows a lack of understanding of what
the term means: individuals can't be "astroturf" by definition; it takes
an organization.
Groups like Free Press are arguably astroturf because of their f
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
> On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>> Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a
>> router
>> if it bit them ...
>>
>
> i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
I hardly ever see you say something wrong about net neutrality or anything
else :). No, other, far more usual suspects in mind here.
On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
wrote:
>
> Suresh wrote:
>
> > The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately
> (and
> >
Suresh wrote:
> The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and
> add professors of law to this already toxic mix)
Ahem. I resemble that remark.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell,
Attorney at Law
CEO/President
Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Member, Cal. Bar Cyber
5 too. Agglutinating multiple separate problems into a single complex title
2 regulation solution
Enough hot air driven thrust is being generated to ensure porcine aviation
too, as section 3 assures us.
On 26-Jul-2014 6:32 am, wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 06:10:09 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
> The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and
> add professors of law to this already toxic mix)
So what you're saying is that the debate is in total violation of
RFC1925, section 4? :)
pgpZXlLN7Hcc2
The debate is dominated by the parties of the first part unfortunately (and
add professors of law to this already toxic mix)
On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
> On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
>> Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would
On 7/25/14 4:29 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them ...
i'm _trying_ to imagine the lobbyists, corporate counsels, and company
officers above the v.p. of engineering i know who have vastly superior
clue a
Astroturfing exists on both sides of the political spectrum but as far as I
can see, like Joly says, Bennett doesn't astroturf.
Not that some leading proponents of net neutrality would even know a router
if it bit them, so there's enough FUD to spare all over.
On Saturday, July 26, 2014, Joly Mac
Personally, I don't get it.
To mock the Brett Glass Google obsession (PK.EFF, Susan Crawford etc) - as
I do - while casting aspersions on Bennett and the ITIF, is hypocrisy.
Astroturfing - defined as paid spoofing of grass roots support for a
position - definitely exists, and is heavily practiced
On 7/22/14 12:07 PM, Paul WALL wrote:
Provided without comment:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality
Thanks! This is nothing new for him. There's astroturf from
him going back to '08 on NANOG.
Remember when he was shilling for ITIF -- a "think tank" whose
bo
On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote:
Provided without comment:
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality
“The FCC’s Net neutrality rules are based on the false premise that American
broadband services are sub-standard compared to those in other countries.”
T
67 matches
Mail list logo
