> netconf would come with the appeal of using a standard and any
> libraries I write for it may be usable with other platforms.
well, how long do you plan to be around and 9k-only?
randy
On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost,
> often other games are played (trouble ticket for service
> billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble
> ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14
> days, etc.).
On Friday, August 01, 2014 06:34:00 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on
> provider, location, etc.
>
> That’s with IP transit included.
With IP Transit included, perhaps. But 10Gbps ports are not
expensive these days.
Depends on whether you selling 10Gbp
On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
> on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month for a
> gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was
> consumer prici
I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet
access to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a
network for a small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps
Internet is about $5,500 a month with the fiber loop included which
itself costs $2000
On Aug 2, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Vlade Ristevski wrote:
> I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet access
> to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a network for a
> small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps Internet is about
> $5,500
That's why I want legislation requiring the operator to be one or the other and
not both.
Most L1 gets built with tax dollars or subsidies anyway.
Owen
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:34, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Even when mandated to
Such a case is unlikely.
On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>> That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services
>> could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark
> Municipalities can be different. It’s possible to write into law that
> they can offer L1 and L2 services, but never anything higher. There’s
> also a built in disincentive to risk tax dollars more speculative, but
> possibly more profitable ventures.
Sure, a muni could offer that and be li
I don't pretend to be the original person with this idea. But I would very much
like to see it implemented.
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:24, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>
>> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> MHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
>> prefer to
Absolutely. We are close and are trying to finalize the firmware for a
subset of our commercial DOCSIS devices. Stay tuned for news and updates
on this front. Be sure to check www.comcast6.net, I will post updates
here.
John
-Original Message-
From: Jim Burwell
Date: Thursday, July 24
I thought JRA was asking about the upstream cost.
Owen
> On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
>> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
>> on that,
Thanks , makes sense. I was looking on peeringdb.com for some locations
nearby but they're all 20+ miles . However, there is a Telx a block
from my house that I walk past everyday. Maybe a I can string along a
10G connection to my basement office :)
On 8/2/2014 9:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There
are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm.
On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Such a case is unlikely.
>
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I can never see
There are plenty of cities with zero ISP's interested in serving them today, I
can't argue
that point. However I believe the single largest reason why that is true is
that the ISP
today has to bear the capital cost of building out the physical plant to serve
the customers.
15-20 year ROI's don
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 07:40:50AM
+0200 Quoting Mark Tinka (mark.ti...@seacom.mu):
> On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> > It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
>
> If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to eve
Is it, or is it the norm because it is the result of a lack of facilities in
those locations?
Show me even one area where there is a rich fiber infrastructure available on
an equal footing to multiple competitors to provide L3 services and there are
no L3 providers offering service to those res
But in the cases of small rural communities it¹s perfectly reasonable to
just setup wifi to cover the town and backhaul a DS3 back to a more
connected location. There¹s plenty of small wireless companies out there
trying to serve these folks.
On 8/2/14, 3:15 PM, "Leo Bicknell" wrote:
>
>Ther
On Sunday, August 03, 2014 01:31:17 AM Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Oh, yes, there is. Multicast? IPv6? Both CAN be done, but
> probably won't.
I'm talking about the opportunities large bandwidth
presents, non-technical issues aside.
Certainly, IPv6 and Multicast have a place on a 1Gbps link
into the
link didn't work for me, I think http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ is
the proper link
On 8/1/2014 5:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 1 21:13:59 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregat
20 matches
Mail list logo
