- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Cogent Communications Info
by David U. 06 Jul '01

06 Jul '01

I have been reading about Cogent Communications recently and was wondering how they can possibly offer 100mbps for $3000 ($1000 if you are an end-user, not a service provider). It just seems too good to be true and we know how that goes... Does anyone on NANOG have experience with them? Thoughts? For those who don't know: Cogent offers 100 mbps at $3000 to service provider or 1000gbps for $20,000. http://www.cogentco.com has some info but not much. thanks, -davidu

4 4

Re: Cogent Communications Info
by Marshall Eubanks 06 Jul '01

06 Jul '01

> >I have been reading about Cogent Communications recently and was wondering how >they can possibly offer 100mbps for $3000 ($1000 if you are an end-user, not a >service provider). It just seems too good to be true and we know how that >goes... My understanding is that the peering is very underprovisioned, and that much of the network is not yet finished. Regards Marshall Eubanks > >Does anyone on NANOG have experience with them? > >Thoughts? > >For those who don't know: Cogent offers 100 mbps at $3000 to service provider >or 1000gbps for $20,000. http://www.cogentco.com has some info but not much. > >thanks, >-davidu > Marshall Eubanks tme(a)21rst-century.com

1 0

Problem, what problem, we don't have problems
by Sean Donelan 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

While problems occur to everyone, the issue I've been fighting for years are vendors who at first deny they are having problems when you ask them about a problem. But, I suspect the analysts are correct, there is very little downside for a company to try to coverup problems. They can always apologize later, and it won't have any long-term effect. "Microsoft acknowledged in February that it had experienced problems with the servers that handle MSN Messenger, after denying for several days that problems existed. That outage came after a series of technical glitches and a hacker attack that prevented many people from accessing the company's Web site. The most recent glitch left many users frustrated, but some analysts doubted it would have any long-term effect on the company's efforts." http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20010705/tc/msn_messenger_1.html

1 0

broadband clarification
by Larry Diffey 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

Alright, for all of you who decided to lecture me on the definition of broadband and it's meaning in strict engineering terms, allow me to clarify (especially for the snotty ones). First off, words can have more than one meaning and that meaning should be taken in context. For example; I'm sure that none of you really think that a cable modem is a modem since it doesn't do AD/DA conversion but we all understand that it's simply a device used to connect a customer to a provider. After all "cable modem" is nothing more than a marketing term so that customers have a rough understanding of what the device does (not that they always understand that either). When I chose to use the term broadband as a reference point for my survey, I mistakenly thought that your brains would parse that out to mean "an minimum acceptable level of bandwidth for consumer internet traffic". If you consider that to be current DSL/Cable speeds fine. If you take that to mean some future technology using quantum mechanics fine. So, if you're going to lecture me on the definition of bandwidth then please stop using the term modem unless you're talking about an actual modem device. The question then remains: What (in your opinion) constitutes broadband according to the services that have been promised to consumers but not yet delivered? Yes, I understand that it's not just speed, but take everything else into account when you consider the minimum speed. Feel free to be immature enough to flame me for my lecture. Larry Diffey

3 3

Re: broadband clarification
by brandon＠rd.bbc.co.uk 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

> I'm sure that none of you really think that a cable modem > is a modem Correct, we know it is > since it doesn't do AD/DA conversion but we all understand > that it's simply a device used to connect a customer to a provider. No, it's a device that converts your data into an analogue signal (modem) suitable for carriage on broadband plant (cable) > After all "cable modem" is nothing more than a marketing term so that > customers have a rough understanding of what the device does (not that > they always understand that either). No it's an actual device that performs the function correctly denoted by it's name. Broadband is the marketing term. > The question then remains: What (in your opinion) constitutes broadband > according to the services that have been promised to consumers but not > yet delivered? The rates obtained from current day broadband systems (e.g. cable modems & *dsl) are normally what is being referred to by the contraction "broadband" brandon

1 0

RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again?
by Tom Walton 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

Commercial broadcast radio is, in olde-worlde communications parlance, *narrowband* modulation of a carrier. Wideband - *not* broadband - modulation refers to signals with transmitted bandwidth that is a significant fraction of the carrier frequency. The baseband signal is essentially the information-bearing signal, sans any modulation of a carrier. Glibness is a poor excuse for sloppiness. --Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:29 PM To: 'Larry Diffey'; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Broadband v. baseband ... again? Broadband isn't a speed, it's a signaling architecture. The alternative is baseband. Ethernet is baseband. Broadcast radio is broadband. Now that you have the two competing terms, please see your friendly neighborhood search engine (PSYFNSE). BTW, silence is a poor excuse for posting a message.

1 0

Re: It's way too quiet
by Miles Fidelman 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

> > I have a number in my head as to what I consider broadband. It's not > > an unreasonable number but it certainly does exceed what is available > > to the average consumer. > > > Oh wise nanogers, what speeds do we need to achieve for the average > > consumer before we truly have broadband? Neglecting the debate about how to define "broadband," I've long maintained that homes and small offices should have whatever people have at work - otherwise telecommuting, small businesses, contractors, and such are at a big disadvantage. That makes "broadband" (or perhaps "standard practice") a moving target. A few years ago that was 10mbps. Today 100bps is becoming the norm (and most PCs come with 10/100 cards). Pretty soon we're talking gigabit ethernet. If you're deploying a new system today, gigabit fiber-to-the-home seems the way to go. Check out www.worldwidepackets.com to see what's available to support that. Miles ************************************************************************** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 mfidelman(a)civicnet.org http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **************************************************************************

1 0

Broadband v. baseband ... again?
by Roeland Meyer 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

Broadband isn't a speed, it's a signaling architecture. The alternative is baseband. Ethernet is baseband. Broadcast radio is broadband. Now that you have the two competing terms, please see your friendly neighborhood search engine (PSYFNSE). BTW, silence is a poor excuse for posting a message. -- From: Larry Diffey [mailto:ldiffey@technologyforward.com] Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 10:13 AM Since it's so quiet in here, I want to stir things up a little with an informal survey. With all of this talk about broadband (mostly in reference to cable modems and xDSL), consumers have been tricked into actually believing that if it's faster than a modem then it's broadband. I have a number in my head as to what I consider broadband. It's not an unreasonable number but it certainly does exceed what is available to the average consumer. Oh wise nanogers, what speeds do we need to achieve for the average consumer before we truly have broadband? I will try and keep track of all the numbers that you give you an average and I'll also give you the number I had in mind.

6 5

Re: It's way too quiet
by Robert Cannon 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

The FCC figure was a benchmark for the purpose of conducting the Sec. 706 Reports. http://www.cybertelecom.org/706.htm It has no more significance than that. It was selected in part because it was believed that at that rate, video with sign language for the disabled would work. Other than creating a bench mark, which the FCC stated in might change in the future, it does not have further regulatory signficance. -B www.cybertelecom.org >>> Vincent Power <vince(a)penguin-power.com> 07/05/01 02:05PM >>> In January 1999, the FCC defined broadband as a connection to an end-user with speeds greater than 200 kbps in both directions. -Vince On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Larry Diffey wrote: > Since it's so quiet in here, I want to stir things up a little with an informal survey. > > With all of this talk about broadband (mostly in reference to cable modems and xDSL), consumers have been tricked into actually believing that if it's faster than a modem then it's broadband. > > I have a number in my head as to what I consider broadband. It's not an unreasonable number but it certainly does exceed what is available to the average consumer. > > Oh wise nanogers, what speeds do we need to achieve for the average consumer before we truly have broadband? > > I will try and keep track of all the numbers that you give you an average and I'll also give you the number I had in mind. > > > Regards, > > Larry Diffey > > **Incidentally, I am at this very moment wearing a t-shirt that says "Will work for bandwidth". > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

2 1

RE: Broadband v. baseband ... again?
by Jeff Harper 05 Jul '01

05 Jul '01

> The great unwashed masses don't necessarily stick with > the time > honored definitions we would prefer that they admire, > respect, and accept > as gospel. Get over it! Well, in my opinion, networking is an exact science, it's very binary, and the definitions must follow suit. It has to be. Chaos would erupt if it wasn't, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria! -- Jeff http://www.mp3.com/intervox

2 1