Microsoft offering xDSL access
Hello, This is my first posting to nanog, though I've been reading it for about a year now. I have somewhat of an operational question that falls loosely into the NANOG AUP (which I re-read before I posted) and it's not meant to start any flame wars over Microsoft. I'm just looking for someone who could give me insight into this issue. Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems. This may be very true, but I have questions about how the Internet is going to handle a bunch of ordinary web surfers now demanding their web pages at 30 times the speed? Is there backbone infrastructure in place to provide this kind of access on a household basis? Where is Microsoft going to find enough peering from NSP's to provide this access to their customers? I think it would be safe to assume that they probably have enough money to pay for peering with every NSP in the US and not even have to resell their bandwidth. I Have a T-1 to my apartment (yes I'm spoiled) and even though I don't get my full 1.5 Mbps, I am definitely happy that I get much faster than 28.8 Kbps. I suppose most of the general population would be so thrilled with even 256 Kbps out of their 6 Mbps line that they will think they are in heaven and won't even think of complaining to Bill that he's cheating them out of their other 5.75 Mbps they're paying for. I'm not even going to ask how they expect the telcos to be able to provide that kind of service on such a massive scale. I live in central Minnesota - predominently US West territory - and they have been providing T-1 access with xDSL technology for over a year now and it already takes 4-8 months to get a T-1 installed. I hope that we won't have to suffer through 24 month installation dates on new circuits because of a flood of these new Microsoft surfers. Thanks, -Dean ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dean Morstad Spacestar Communications Systems Administrator A Division of Firmware of MN, Inc. dean@spacestar.net 9531 W. 78th St http://www.spacestar.net Eden Prairie, MN 55344 http://www.morstad.org 612.996.0000 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems.
The announcement also said that four of the five baby Bells (all but BA) are also in on the deal so they'll all use common xDSL standards, something that's been a problem in the past. But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be gold rush time as every ISP in the country scrambles to get colo space for a router in every central office in the territory they want to serve? Do the Bells plan to sell MAN connections between telco-run routers at the phone office and the ISPs? Who knows? But I think I can say with confidence that whatever the plan is, it won't be pretty. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 727, Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 03:19:37AM -0000, John R. Levine wrote:
But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be gold rush time as every ISP in the country scrambles to get colo space for a router in every central office in the territory they want to serve? Do the Bells plan to sell MAN connections between telco-run routers at the phone office and the ISPs? Who knows?
The only plan I can see that would be equitable would be for tge regulated utility to operate the "DSL-Max's" (or whatever), and rent access to all comers at a tarriffed price. This _is_ after all a side effect of the fact that they have an effective monopoly on the copper... and it _is_ the regulated company that owns the copper. As long as they're charging their subsidiary the same price as me, I don't care. But I _wouldn't_ let them provide _anything_ except routing. No news, no mail, no Radius... nada. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
At 03:19 AM 1/23/98 -0000, you wrote:
Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems.
The announcement also said that four of the five baby Bells (all but BA) are also in on the deal so they'll all use common xDSL standards, something that's been a problem in the past.
But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be
http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/941news/central.html and yes you've got to have colo at the CO. I'm not sure how they're going to hand off. I would think it would make sense for CLEC's to do the aggregation of DSL subscription and point it back to the customer i.e. the ISP pulls a circuit into our CO, and we split the traffic after carrying it back from the CO for the ISP. Disclaimer: I'm thinking out loud. We're about to start DSL trials and I'm only certain of the colo situation. Regards, -- Martin Hannigan hannigan@xcom.net Director of Data Networks V:617.500.0108 XCOM Technologies, INC. F:617.500.0002 The Leading Carrier for ISP's http://www.xcom.net
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Martin Hannigan Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 8:59 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access
At 03:19 AM 1/23/98 -0000, you wrote:
Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems.
The announcement also said that four of the five baby Bells (all but BA) are also in on the deal so they'll all use common xDSL standards, something that's been a problem in the past.
But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be
http://techweb.cmp.com/eet/news/97/941news/central.html and yes you've got to have colo at the CO. I'm not sure how they're going to hand off. I would think it would make sense for CLEC's to do the aggregation of DSL subscription and point it back to the customer i.e. the ISP pulls a circuit into our CO, and we split the traffic after carrying it back from the CO for the ISP.
Disclaimer: I'm thinking out loud. We're about to start DSL trials and I'm only certain of the colo situation.
We didn't even want to THINK about talking to the telco about co-lo at the CO. Our solution was to go to a business that is NEXT DOOR to the CO and offer them free/cheap internet in exchange for rack and space on their telco termination board. We're getting very good distance on our pairs.
On 23 Jan 1998, John R. Levine wrote:
Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems.
The announcement also said that four of the five baby Bells (all but BA) are also in on the deal so they'll all use common xDSL standards, something that's been a problem in the past.
But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be gold rush time as every ISP in the country scrambles to get colo space
My X-files conspiracy idea of the week on this is that they don't care about the oh-so independent ISPs because they (Microsoft/RBOCs) will construct their own backbone to haul this traffic and force everyone else to peer with them ON THEIR TERMS! It's the microsoft way to try and set the standard by force of numbers, they utterly failed at this tactict when dealing with the internet, they failed at trying to get users to opt for MSN over the (IETF style) Internet, this is just another attempt at an end run around people like us. The RBOCs have the last mile, UUNET has the Internet technology, Compaq has the sales channels into business (the initial beachhead) Intel will make the xDSl chipset so they get economy of scale. The question is who will pay to build the backend infrastructure? All they gotta do is connect to the NAPs and then start building a NAP structure of their own, set to their own standards and protocols, this is a good way to blindside Internet-II and IPv6 deployment. Opps, I gotta go, the;re are some black helicopters hovering outside my house :) geoffw
I agree with this line of thinking, by looking at the predatory historical behavior of MicroSoft to this date. I think if you would now talk to Rockwell and USR to beta test their xDSL equipment this can be derailed and since the links are already their from you to the telco's this can be done in a short period of time, then the current projection from the other (3) the infrastruction here is in place and polices and all are in place with some additional changes, here rules now and the ball should get rolling.....who controls the market first sets the standard. Henry R. Linneweh Geoff White wrote:
On 23 Jan 1998, John R. Levine wrote:
Today there was an article in the sci-tech section of cnn.com mentioning that Microsoft was teaming up with Intel and Compaq to offer xDSL service to the homes for a very low price. They claim to be able to provide Internet access "30 times faster" than regular modems.
The announcement also said that four of the five baby Bells (all but BA) are also in on the deal so they'll all use common xDSL standards, something that's been a problem in the past.
But the important thing they did not say (and which may be of some interest to NANOG) was what is supposed to happen to the packets once they whiz down the DSL wire from the consumer to the phone company central office, since DSL data, unlike ISDN or regular dialup connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be gold rush time as every ISP in the country scrambles to get colo space
My X-files conspiracy idea of the week on this is that they don't care about the oh-so independent ISPs because they (Microsoft/RBOCs) will construct their own backbone to haul this traffic and force everyone else to peer with them ON THEIR TERMS! It's the microsoft way to try and set the standard by force of numbers, they utterly failed at this tactict when dealing with the internet, they failed at trying to get users to opt for MSN over the (IETF style) Internet, this is just another attempt at an end run around people like us. The RBOCs have the last mile, UUNET has the Internet technology, Compaq has the sales channels into business (the initial beachhead) Intel will make the xDSl chipset so they get economy of scale. The question is who will pay to build the backend infrastructure? All they gotta do is connect to the NAPs and then start building a NAP structure of their own, set to their own standards and protocols, this is a good way to blindside Internet-II and IPv6 deployment.
Opps, I gotta go, the;re are some black helicopters hovering outside my house :)
geoffw
-- ¢4i1å
connections, doesn't go through the phone switch. Whoever handles that IP traffic needs a router or something similar next to the phone switch to connect to those DSL pairs. Do the Bells plan to hand all the traffic to their oh-so-independent ISP subsidiaries? Will it be gold rush time as every ISP in the country scrambles to get colo space for a router in every central office in the territory they want to serve? Do the Bells plan to sell MAN connections between telco-run routers at the phone office and the ISPs? Who knows?
Allow me to shed some light on how great this could be for everyone, as well as share some insights as to the problems they are currently having. First of all, there are two different kinds of xDSL service one can buy. One is a subscriber side, and the other side is a server side (which US West calls MegaSubscriber/MegaOffice/MegaBusiness and MegaCentral respectively). My guess is that they're using an ATM based network to bring the subscriber line into a packet switched medium, pointing the traffic through the network by way of a PVC, and into the MegaCentral device which has the opposite asymetrical characteristics of a subscriber line. In this fashion, any ISP can buy a port, plug it into an ethernet, and provide service. And the pricing isn't bad, either. $400/month for a 1.5Mbps outbound connection. Subscriber side is great, too. $40/month for the 192Kbps... Do the math, you dialup providers, and see how much money it saves you over dialup modem banks. The cost savings are enough to put in more bandwidth, and still have a higher profit margin than before. As for what US West tends to do with the bandwidth, they have an unregulated division called !nteract that will take care of that part. It is my understanding that !nteract will advertise directly following US West commercials, but US West must still give you the choice of your IP provider when you order it from them. Here's the kicker...!nteracts price is just $20/month. Since you a) can't colocate gear in a US West CO b) can't get the raw copper from US West, and in some states, not even if you are a CLEC (like arizona, thanks to our lovely state congress) c) can't cost justify it even if you could do above you may as well buy their service. Economics: It's good for the ISP...it lowers their costs to deliver consumer access services...great dialup replacement. It may adversely effect the ISPs high speed products, as those business that previously would have bought that 56k frame relay line may choose DSL instead. I believe that there will still be a market for the higher quality higher cost line, though. It's good for the phone company. Imagine how much they will save over the next 5 years (if deployment is high) because it will free up tons of congestion on the phone network, and they won't have to upgrade it for quite some time. It's good for !nteract...they are just an ISP It's good for customers. There are a lot of benefits to having a dedicated connection...no more "NO CARRIER", no more "FAST BUSIES" (or slow ones), no more MS DUP hassles. This is regardless of any speed improvement they might see, so even if you heavily aggregate, there is still a lot of new value for them. Problems: Intelligence that I have suggests that in phx, USW's beta area, only 20% of those that have asked for DSL service have loop qualified for it. Oops... I also hear rumblings that the current pricing is considered "promotional" and may change soon. Dave -- Dave Siegel dave@rtd.net Network Engineer dave@pager.rtd.com (alpha pager) (520)579-0450 (home office) http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/
My guess is that they're using an ATM based network to bring the subscriber line into a packet switched medium, pointing the traffic through the network by way of a PVC, and into the MegaCentral device which has the opposite asymetrical characteristics of a subscriber line. In this fashion, any ISP can buy a port, plug it into an ethernet, and provide service. And the pricing isn't bad, either. $400/month for a 1.5Mbps outbound connection. Subscriber side is great, too. $40/month for the 192Kbps... Do the math, you dialup providers, and see how much money it saves you over dialup modem banks. The cost savings are enough to put in more bandwidth, and still have a higher profit margin than before.
Southwestern Bell wants $900+ for a T-1 ATM interconnect for the ADSL. This is technologyically a fairly good idea as it has good scaling properties, but it puts ISPs into the same position as it does long distance carriers when they have to compete for intrastate long distance. If the RBOCs didn't have pocket ISPs I wouldn't be bothered by this, but since we have already seen anti-competive actions from SBC/SWBISP, there are lots og regulator problems with this. Luckily our PUC actually listens to the consumers and has forced the LECs to provide "advanced" services like ISDN at reasonable rates. (The forced tarrif changes.) I suspect we will see this issue pop up at the regulatory level in Texas. --- Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc. jerry@fc.net PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708 | 1-800-968-8750 | 512-458-9810 http://www.fc.net
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 12:36:37PM -0700, Dave Siegel wrote:
As for what US West tends to do with the bandwidth, they have an unregulated division called !nteract that will take care of that part. It is my understanding that !nteract will advertise directly following US West commercials, but US West must still give you the choice of your IP provider when you order it from them. Here's the kicker...!nteracts price is just $20/month.
Since you a) can't colocate gear in a US West CO b) can't get the raw copper from US West, and in some states, not even if you are a CLEC (like arizona, thanks to our lovely state congress) c) can't cost justify it even if you could do above you may as well buy their service.
Precisely the position they want us in. I hate to say it this baldly, Dave, but is the check in the mail?
I also hear rumblings that the current pricing is considered "promotional" and may change soon.
Yeah, once everyone's hooked. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Has anyone actually used the USWest/Phoenix xDSL? I was suggesting to my boss, only half jokingly, that we subscribe to a few $120 a month xDSL "Business User" lines to USWest for fun, add on the $20/month internet connection, and find out how oversubscribed !nteract really is. "We don't know anything about the Internet, we're just mindless consumers. Oops, how'd that hssi port get in there?" -h : First of all, there are two different kinds of xDSL service one can buy. : One is a subscriber side, and the other side is a server side (which US West : calls MegaSubscriber/MegaOffice/MegaBusiness and MegaCentral respectively). [..] : As for what US West tends to do with the bandwidth, they have an unregulated : division called !nteract that will take care of that part. It is : my understanding that !nteract will advertise directly following US West : commercials, but US West must still give you the choice of your IP provider : when you order it from them. Here's the kicker...!nteracts price is just : $20/month.
I was suggesting to my boss, only half jokingly, that we subscribe to a few $120 a month xDSL "Business User" lines to USWest for fun, add on the $20/month internet connection, and find out how oversubscribed !nteract really is.
I doubt it's oversubscribed at all, since it hasn't really become a popular item yet. dave -- Dave Siegel dave@rtd.net Network Engineer dave@pager.rtd.com (alpha pager) (520)579-0450 (home office) http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/
This may be very true, but I have questions about how the Internet is going to handle a bunch of ordinary web surfers now demanding their web pages at 30 times the speed? Is there backbone infrastructure in place to provide this kind of access on a household basis? Where is Microsoft going to find enough peering from NSP's to provide this access to their customers? I think it would be safe to assume that they probably have
This usage can be sustained easily by using proxy/cache implementations similar to those of the cable modem ISP's. After all, most of the bandwidth usage will come from http traffic most likely. Regarding the NSP, consider this: UUNet provides dialup pool connectivity for MSN. Microsoft owns a nice chunk of UUNet. UUNet is/will soon be implementing xDSL (IDSL and SDSL to be exact). UUNet is a big monster, and will only grow bigger ("If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em")... Microsoft will be introducing xDSL access. ...and draw your own conclusions. :)
On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 10:28:52PM -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote:
UUNet provides dialup pool connectivity for MSN. Microsoft owns a nice chunk of UUNet. UUNet is/will soon be implementing xDSL (IDSL and SDSL to be exact). UUNet is a big monster, and will only grow bigger ("If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em")... Microsoft will be introducing xDSL access.
...and draw your own conclusions. :)
Happily. UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses. You do the math. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses.
Okay, now lets talk about a wide-scale xDSL implementation using a reasonably well known POP architecture like UUNet's. If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP. Is this correct, if not, what am I missing? Thanks, -Deepak.
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 02:23:19AM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses.
If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP.
Is this correct, if not, what am I missing?
That's correct. DSL is a baseband technology, running over copper. Read: layer 1. The only practical place to put DSL headends right now is in RBOC CO's. No one else has the point to point copper -- it's not a multiplexed layer 1 service like cablemodems. Oh, and sorry, backhauling isn't an issue. The DSL modem at the opposite end of the line from the customer _has to physically be there_. Once you grab the signal and turn it into some other layer 1 format, you can mux it and back haul it, but that doesn't solve the problem at hand. Cheers, -- j -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Jay R. Ashworth sez:
If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP.
Is this correct, if not, what am I missing?
That's correct. DSL is a baseband technology, running over copper. Read: layer 1. The only practical place to put DSL headends right now is in RBOC CO's. No one else has the point to point copper -- it's not a multiplexed layer 1 service like cablemodems.
OR.... You have to be the RBOC. Or subservient to same. People keep asking me "Why is Hell Titanic so hot on xDSL and so cold on ISDN?" and this is the reason; with ISDN, you control who you talk to, with xDSL, THEY do. "Hey Ms. ISP, want to compete against bellatlantic.net's offering? Rent xDSL connections from us. Period." -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
OR.... You have to be the RBOC. Or subservient to same.
People keep asking me "Why is Hell Titanic so hot on xDSL and so cold on ISDN?" and this is the reason; with ISDN, you control who you talk to, with xDSL, THEY do.
Bell Atlantic has a much bigger project in the works then what has been announced by the other 5 RBOCs - they are ahead of the game, announcements probably this summer across the entire footprint (Maine to VA) - it will be based on the current trials which are very fair to the ISP's.
"Hey Ms. ISP, want to compete against bellatlantic.net's offering? Rent xDSL connections from us. Period."
There are some problems with the trial model in the sales cycle, all calls go to a BA center where the salesperons reveal all details such as "provider X has Y bandwidth, provider BA has Y*5 bandwidth, im neutral but if it was me (and my commisions) I'd go with BA". The numbers bear it out, BA has the lions share of the beta customers. Stb
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, David Lesher wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth sez:
If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP.
Is this correct, if not, what am I missing?
That's correct. DSL is a baseband technology, running over copper. Read: layer 1. The only practical place to put DSL headends right now is in RBOC CO's. No one else has the point to point copper -- it's not a multiplexed layer 1 service like cablemodems.
OR.... You have to be the RBOC. Or subservient to same.
Well my understanding here in PacBell/SBC land is that the way it will work, (this comes from someone who made a naieve inquiry to another equally naieve saleperson at PacBell/SBC), is that you need to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone in order to order xDSL (the person just wanted to connect from their home to the office), when I heard this I though it was totally absurd but the truth, as they say is far stranger :) What the salesguy was saying but (he really didn't know it) and what I found out from a little digging is that PacBell's intent is to only sell xDSl to CLECs ! So then it all makes sense, you need a router that connects to their ATM cloud, then they just route the traffic from their copper on over to your routers and presto! You are an xDSL enabled ISP! So the question is, are CLECs subservient to RBOCs but I think this then becomes a discussion for isp-telco not nanog. In any event the time will soon come that if you want to be a real ISP, you will have to become a CLEC. geoffw
Geoff White wrote:
Well my understanding here in PacBell/SBC land is that the way it will work, (this comes from someone who made a naieve inquiry to another equally naieve saleperson at PacBell/SBC), is that you need to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone in order to order xDSL (the person just wanted to connect from their home to the office), when I heard this I though it was totally absurd but the truth, as they say is far stranger :)
Why is this absurd? You think coolocating routers at COs is less absurd? Aggregating DSL traffic in a DSLAM and pumping it out via ATM is the right way to do things. (If I totally misunderstood and you are saying that using *ATM* is absurd, then don't bother to reply. I'm an atheist.)
What the salesguy was saying but (he really didn't know it) and what I found out from a little digging is that PacBell's intent is to only sell xDSl to CLECs ! So then it all makes sense, you need a router that connects to their ATM cloud, then they just route the traffic from their copper on over to your routers and presto! You are an xDSL enabled ISP!
This is crap. Covad, Brainstorm, DNAI, etc. are CLECs?! I don't think so. Yet they seem to be able to offer xDSL using P*B.
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Geoff White wrote:
Well my understanding here in PacBell/SBC land is that the way it will work, (this comes from someone who made a naieve inquiry to another equally naieve saleperson at PacBell/SBC), is that you need to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone in order to order xDSL (the person just wanted to connect from their home to the office), when I heard this I though it was totally absurd but the truth, as they say is far stranger :)
Why is this absurd? You think coolocating routers at COs is less absurd? Aggregating DSL traffic in a DSLAM and pumping it out via ATM is the right way to do things.
No it was absurd because my friend just wanted to run two adsl "modems" between his office and home on copper. He was told that to do that he needed to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone, that's whats absurd.
(If I totally misunderstood and you are saying that using *ATM* is absurd, then
see above
don't bother to reply. I'm an atheist.)
What the salesguy was saying but (he really didn't know it) and what I found out from a little digging is that PacBell's intent is to only sell xDSl to CLECs ! So then it all makes sense, you need a router that connects to their ATM cloud, then they just route the traffic from their copper on over to your routers and presto! You are an xDSL enabled ISP!
This is crap. Covad, Brainstorm, DNAI, etc. are CLECs?! I don't think so. Yet they seem to be able to offer xDSL using P*B.
not yet, but I bet in two years time they wiil be (or will be going out of business) When we started InterNex P*B didn't offer ISDN either, now try to make money on that type of connectivity in the Bay Area.
From: Geoff White <geoffw@precipice.v-site.net> No it was absurd because my friend just wanted to run two adsl "modems" between his office and home on copper. He was told that to do that he needed to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone, that's whats absurd. two ADSL modems will not talk to each other back to back on a piece of wire. If you want to fire up dry-copper connectivity between yourself and a friend you want some sort of HDSL product; look at the Campus line at http://www.pairgain.com/ovr_prd.htm ---Rob
What are you talking about? There is a distinction between CP modem and CO modem, but.. if you happen to have one of each, it should work. Ever try it? -greg
No it was absurd because my friend just wanted to run two adsl "modems" between his office and home on copper. He was told that to do that he needed to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone, that's whats absurd.
two ADSL modems will not talk to each other back to back on a piece of wire. If you want to fire up dry-copper connectivity between yourself and a friend you want some sort of HDSL product; look at the Campus line at http://www.pairgain.com/ovr_prd.htm
---Rob
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or your favorite product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory. Geoff White wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Geoff White wrote:
Well my understanding here in PacBell/SBC land is that the way it will work, (this comes from someone who made a naieve inquiry to another equally naieve saleperson at PacBell/SBC), is that you need to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone in order to order xDSL (the person just wanted to connect from their home to the office), when I heard this I though it was totally absurd but the truth, as they say is far stranger :)
Why is this absurd? You think coolocating routers at COs is less absurd? Aggregating DSL traffic in a DSLAM and pumping it out via ATM is the right way to do things.
No it was absurd because my friend just wanted to run two adsl "modems" between his office and home on copper. He was told that to do that he needed to connect to PacBell's ATM backbone, that's whats absurd.
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or your favorite product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory.
Well it will work most of the time, but I have run into several problems on a few connections. If you have a large ammount of bridge taps or load coils you can run into problems. -- Nathan Stratton Telecom & ISP Consulting www.robotics.net nathan@robotics.net
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 08:57:52PM -0800, Geoff White put this into my mailbox:
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or your favorite product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory.
Their wise to that now :) There seems to be a moratorium on "alarm circuits"
As I understand it this is illegal; as long as the service (alarm circuit, dry pair, whatever) is tariffed by whatever regulatory commission the telco lives under, they are required to provide the service when asked (and paid). I could be wrong though, it is hearsay. (or seeread, actually) Bitch to your local regulatory commission and let us know what happens }:> -dalvenjah -- Dalvenjah FoxFire (aka Sven Nielsen) In cyberspace, noone knows you're Founder, the DALnet IRC Network wearing pointy ears. e-mail: dalvenjah@dal.net WWW: http://www.dal.net/~dalvenjah/ whois: SN90 Try DALnet! http://www.dal.net/
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Dalvenjah FoxFire Sent: Friday, January 23, 1998 10:20 PM To: Geoff White Cc: ^Faust^; David Lesher; Jay R. Ashworth; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 08:57:52PM -0800, Geoff White put this into my mailbox:
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or
your favorite
product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory.
Their wise to that now :) There seems to be a moratorium on "alarm circuits"
As I understand it this is illegal; as long as the service (alarm circuit, dry pair, whatever) is tariffed by whatever regulatory commission the telco lives under, they are required to provide the service when asked (and paid). I could be wrong though, it is hearsay. (or seeread, actually)
Bitch to your local regulatory commission and let us know what happens }:>
They may not be able to stop you from ordering a dry pair, but they may not have to run it directly from your point A to the CO to point B. They can run it 6 miles out to bumbleville and them to point B, thwarting your scheme.
Not unless they implemented this in the last 12 weeks or so. You may be thinking of U.S. West. Or maybe I just got lucky. Geoff White wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or your favorite product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory.
Their wise to that now :) There seems to be a moratorium on "alarm circuits"
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Sharif Torpis wrote:
Not unless they implemented this in the last 12 weeks or so. You may be thinking of U.S. West. Or maybe I just got lucky.
we tried this in December and it was a no go. basically they say that they are running out of pairs for that purpose.
Geoff White wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, ^Faust^ wrote:
Tell him to order a 2-wire alarm circuit and slap a Tut 12000 (or your favorite product) on each end. Yes, I've done it. And yes, it was in P*B territory.
Their wise to that now :) There seems to be a moratorium on "alarm circuits"
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Deepak Jain wrote:
UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses.
Okay, now lets talk about a wide-scale xDSL implementation using a reasonably well known POP architecture like UUNet's.
If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP.
Is this correct, if not, what am I missing?
We are part of the Bell Atlantic ADSL trial in Northern VA - basically BA has 6 CO's with terminating ADSL modems. This is aggregated onto a FDDI ring between each CO on cisco's. One of the CO's has a port into the BA SMDS cloud which is the interconnect with participating ISP's who also have a port on the SMDS cloud. So basically, packetize the data as early as possible to get the 20x plus economies of scale vs hauling channelized circuits. Stb VP Technology ClarkNet Verio www.verio.net/vsite/eastern.html
Deepak Jain said once upon a time:
UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses.
Okay, now lets talk about a wide-scale xDSL implementation using a reasonably well known POP architecture like UUNet's.
If xDSL can only run about 18kft end-to-end, to service a wide metro area like Washington, D.C. one would either have to have a POP within every 6 mile radius (fed by conventional circuits) or backhaul the data (by conventional circuit) to their POP.
Is this correct, if not, what am I missing?
The fact that phone companies like US West are tying the local loop DSL circuits into their ATM network. All UUnet or another provider needs to do to provide DSL service is be tied into the same ATM network.
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 06:23:44AM -0500, Adam Rothschild wrote:
UUNET doesn't own dedicated single-circuit copper to people's houses.
Is that to say that they cannot buy out someone who does? :)
Actually, yes. Have you looked at what Regional Bell operating Companies are _selling_ for lately? Cheers, -- j -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "Two words: Darth Doogie." -- Jason Colby, Tampa Bay, Florida on alt.fan.heinlein +1 813 790 7592
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:28:52 -0500 (EST) From: Adam Rothschild <asr@millburn.net> Subject: Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access To: Dean Morstad <dean@spacestar.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
This may be very true, but I have questions about how the Internet is going to handle a bunch of ordinary web surfers now demanding their web pages at 30 times the speed? Is there backbone infrastructure in place to provide this kind of access on a household basis? Where is Microsoft going to find enough peering from NSP's to provide this access to their customers? I think it would be safe to assume that they probably have
This usage can be sustained easily by using proxy/cache implementations similar to those of the cable modem ISP's. After all, most of the bandwidth usage will come from http traffic most likely.
Regarding the NSP, consider this:
UUNet provides dialup pool connectivity for MSN. Microsoft owns a nice chunk of UUNet. UUNet is/will soon be implementing xDSL (IDSL and SDSL to be exact). UUNet is a big monster, and will only grow bigger ("If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em")... Microsoft will be introducing xDSL access.
...and draw your own conclusions. :)
Hmm. Worldcom owns UUNet/ALTERNET. Worldcom does dial up for AOL and Compuserve. Worldcom owns LDDS/Wiltel. Worldcom is buying MCI and already owns ANS. Microsoft will do what? History: ANS was the first non commercial (read educational) Internet backbone. ALTERNET was the first commercial NSP in 19987.
Dave Nordlund d-nordlund@ukans.edu University of Kansas 913/864-0450 Computing Services FAX 913/864-0485 Lawrence, KS 66045 KANREN
participants (22)
-
^Faust^ -
Adam Rothschild -
Dalvenjah FoxFire -
DAVE NORDLUND -
Dave Siegel -
David Lemson -
David Lesher -
Dean Morstad -
Deepak Jain -
Geoff White -
Greg Simpson -
Henry Linneweh -
hhui＠arcfour.com -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jeremy Porter -
johnl＠iecc.com -
Martin Hannigan -
Nathan Stratton -
Pete Ashdown -
Robert E. Seastrom -
Sharif Torpis
-
Stephen Balbach