is this like a peering war somehow?
proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's customers can live without your "assymetric" content, here are two articles i saw today via slashdot. what's interesting to me is whether bellsouth will be sued some time later by some other content provider for de-peering them without also having applied the same rules to google. note, this isn't a bellsouth-specific rant, they just happen to be mentioned in today's story. -------- http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/google_we_wont.html Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion January 18, 2006 BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay extortion-type fees if the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But Google has news for them: It won't pay. [...] -------- http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/bellsouth_cyber.html BellSouth: Cyberextortion Pays Off January 17, 2006 BellSouth's new business model, a slightly more polite form of the kind of extortion practiced by Tony Soprano, is starting to pay off. The company says it is in negotiations with several Web sites willing to pay extra fees to BellSouth for more bandwidth than it provides to other sites. [...] --------
I refer to a previous post: Best effort is best effort, right? Ergo setting special QOS for special people=worse QOS for notspecial people. And who knew these content providers were getting free bandwidth? Me, I thought they had to pay for their leased lines :-) I'd say more, but I'll trigger swearfilters..
On Jan 19, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's customers can live without your "assymetric" content.
I'm sure the hardware vendors don't mind the prospect of wide-scale cycle-intensive QoS being deployed on large networks. -david
This is the USA. They will be sued no matter what they do. They will be sued even if they do nothing. The use of the ambigious pronoun is deliberate. They are both big enough (both goliths, no davids) that attorneys will target them both for real and imagined vices. Peering battles are a good thing, if annoying. Sometimes you can't watch your favorite television station on your cable system, sometimes you can't reach your favorite web site through your ISP. If you hide the pain, you also hide the pressure to fix it. For those unfamilar with history, insert Benjamin Franklin quote, I would suggest reading the FCC Walker Report (1938) and the AT&T Kingsbury Commitment (1913).
More like a preference/QoS war - peering has little to do with it. BS et al will provide their customers a route to Google, Yahoo, etc - anything else is economic suicide. The big question is, can they convince the content players that they need preferential transport. Anyone with a clue would say that things are working just fine, and that the bits won't move any faster in an uncongested and uncontested modern Internet backbone network. The RBOCs need to get over this - they are floundering around to try and find a way to recoup network costs. This is one front. IMS is another. I feel their pain, but this battle has been lost. It has taken ten years, but content has turned out to be king, at least as far as profit margins go. The RBOCs are paying for their lack of vision. Perhaps the RBOCs can do better with IPTV and take on the MSOs? Who knows, but this effort to wring profit out of done deals is a sign of desperation from companies that have lost the ability to innovate. - Daniel Golding On 1/19/06 6:44 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> wrote:
proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's customers can live without your "assymetric" content, here are two articles i saw today via slashdot. what's interesting to me is whether bellsouth will be sued some time later by some other content provider for de-peering them without also having applied the same rules to google. note, this isn't a bellsouth-specific rant, they just happen to be mentioned in today's story.
--------
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/google_we_wont.html Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion January 18, 2006
BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay extortion-type fees if the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But Google has news for them: It won't pay. [...]
--------
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/bellsouth_cyber.html BellSouth: Cyberextortion Pays Off January 17, 2006
BellSouth's new business model, a slightly more polite form of the kind of extortion practiced by Tony Soprano, is starting to pay off. The company says it is in negotiations with several Web sites willing to pay extra fees to BellSouth for more bandwidth than it provides to other sites. [...]
--------
DG> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:49:12 -0500 DG> From: Daniel Golding DG> The RBOCs need to get over this - they are floundering around to try and DG> find a way to recoup network costs. This is one front. IMS is another. I It's not just RBOCs. Approximately five years back I approached a cableco about peering. They wanted to charge more for peering than what they did for transit. Justification? "It's priority access to our customers." Note that it was NOT due to transit costs. They still wanted the higher fee if one ran a private line directly to their POP. This was for a mostly-content network. So much for content/eyeball synergy. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:45:18PM +0000, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
DG> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:49:12 -0500 DG> From: Daniel Golding
DG> The RBOCs need to get over this - they are floundering around to try and DG> find a way to recoup network costs. This is one front. IMS is another. I
It's not just RBOCs. Approximately five years back I approached a cableco about peering. They wanted to charge more for peering than what they did for transit. Justification? "It's priority access to our customers."
Note that it was NOT due to transit costs. They still wanted the higher fee if one ran a private line directly to their POP.
This was for a mostly-content network. So much for content/eyeball synergy.
Well, since content/eyeball is a two-way street and goes both ways, I would not be surprised when some major content network starts telling access networks to pay up to peer or otherwise to gain access to their content. BellSouth is better off buying transit from Cogent and forget this "how do we make the most money off of our access network" mantra ;) James
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:44:59 +0000, "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> said:
proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's customers can live without your "assymetric" content, here are two articles i saw today via slashdot. what's interesting to me is whether bellsouth will be sued some time later by some other content provider for de-peering them without also having applied the same rules to google. note, this isn't a bellsouth-specific rant, they just happen to be mentioned in today's story.
Carriers trying to charge content-providers for access to their network/customers is just part of a greater picture. The telco industry is fighting to re-establish their dominant position. Traditionally they've been able to pocket (extort) a large portion of the revenue for 3rd-party PSTN services (content services) themselves. Over the last decade they've gained control of the ISP-industry and noe they want to achieve the same level of control of the internet. The most conservative are even suggesting to remove internet-governance from the public domain. The European telecoms industry is openly urging the UN to take control of ICANN's role. In the process they are trying to place the functions of IANA and IETF in their belowed ITU. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate IP as a product, to be able to sell access to sub-protocols as individual services. //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do "some packets are more equal than others" here in Europe, except for the mobile people with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network into a new division with a specific remit to provide open access to all ISPs and alt- tels who want it. It's in the US that the RBOCs and cablesters are actually doing this. On 1/20/06, Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:44:59 +0000, "Paul Vixie" <paul@vix.com> said:
proving once again that "peering ratios" only matter if the other guy's customers can live without your "assymetric" content, here are two articles i saw today via slashdot. what's interesting to me is whether bellsouth will be sued some time later by some other content provider for de-peering them without also having applied the same rules to google. note, this isn't a bellsouth-specific rant, they just happen to be mentioned in today's story.
Carriers trying to charge content-providers for access to their network/customers is just part of a greater picture. The telco industry is fighting to re-establish their dominant position. Traditionally they've been able to pocket (extort) a large portion of the revenue for 3rd-party PSTN services (content services) themselves. Over the last decade they've gained control of the ISP-industry and noe they want to achieve the same level of control of the internet. The most conservative are even suggesting to remove internet-governance from the public domain. The European telecoms industry is openly urging the UN to take control of ICANN's role. In the process they are trying to place the functions of IANA and IETF in their belowed ITU. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate IP as a product, to be able to sell access to sub-protocols as individual services.
//per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do "some packets are more equal than others" here in Europe, except for the mobile people with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network into a new division with a specific remit to provide open access to all ISPs and alt- tels who want it.
My guess would be that basically everybody doing triple play will prioritize the IPTV and VoIP packets in their network including the access. Considering that streaming UDP IPTV requires very very low packet loss, much better than Best Effort, this is needed to provide a good quality service. If you do LLQ you want to make sure you can control what goes into that class, that can be done several ways, including disallowing anything you don't know about (transit/ix) to go there. This is preferential treatment for some packets and it makes perfect technological sense. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
My guess would be that basically everybody doing triple play will prioritize the IPTV and VoIP packets in their network including the access. Considering that streaming UDP IPTV requires very very low
packet
loss, much better than Best Effort, this is needed to provide a good quality service.
This is preferential treatment for some packets and it makes perfect technological sense.
But it's no magic bullet. Streaming live media also requires low jitter, especially if you are selling it as TV because viewers will join and leave channels often, as they change channels on their remote controls. This means you can't have big local buffers to hide jitter, therefore you have to build a network with enough capacity so that packets are all cut-through switched. It's possible to hide packet loss from IPTV by throwing away some other application's packets but you can't hide jitter on your network. And if you have built such a good network that you don't have jitter, there is not going to be any packet loss either so QoS does nothing at all. Preferential treatment can degrade service, but it cannot improve service. If you prefer an IPTV service then you are degrading all other services. If a 3rd party measures the true quality of your service without using IPTV, then they will see a network with much worse performance than on a network which does not do preferential treatment. No magic bullets. And if you are spending the extra money to implement preferential treatment, can you be sure that there is a market willing to pay extra for this? --Michael Dillon
<Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com> wrote: [...]
But it's no magic bullet. Streaming live media also requires low jitter, especially if you are selling it as TV because viewers will join and leave channels often, as they change channels on their remote controls. This means you can't have big local buffers to hide jitter, therefore you have to build a network with enough capacity so that packets are all cut-through switched.
I observe about 3-4 seconds of latency on the UK DVB-T and DAB broadcasts anyway compared to analogue. Cost-cutting on CPU grunt in decoder boxes can mean it takes up to ten seconds to change channel. In contrast, streaming video and audio from iTMS starts to play a lot quicker. It sounds like the problems with jitter and latency over private IP networks is overstated if it still works fine over the Internet. (FWIW, this is on 1Mb/s ADSL that is 170ms from www.apple.com.) -- My mother protected me from the world and my father threatened me with it. - Quentin Crisp
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Peter Corlett wrote:
<Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com> wrote: [...]
But it's no magic bullet. Streaming live media also requires low jitter, especially if you are selling it as TV because viewers will join and leave channels often, as they change channels on their remote controls. This means you can't have big local buffers to hide jitter, therefore you have to build a network with enough capacity so that packets are all cut-through switched.
I observe about 3-4 seconds of latency on the UK DVB-T and DAB broadcasts anyway compared to analogue. Cost-cutting on CPU grunt in decoder boxes can mean it takes up to ten seconds to change channel.
<AOL> Here in the US, Comcast's "digital cable" service takes seconds to show a picture after you change channels. I don't know if that's buffering or CPU or what, but consumers are clearly OK with it. </AOL> So you _can_ have a large client-side buffer and ignore jitter. That means packet loss is important, not jitter. (A 2 second buffer would be orders of magnitude more than your typical jitter.) Which means queue size is only relevant if you drop things off the back end of the queue. Which means you can build an intentionally congested network and "sell" the front-end of the queue to services which will pay you more. The rest will just risk being dropped off the end of the queue. Will consumers care? Hell, they're already used to the Internet not really working right, rebooting their computers every day, and sites being taken down 'cause the next box over is infected and DDoS'ing someone (or their domain has been removed for spamming :). In fact, most consumers probably can't use the speed they have since their computer is using all the available bandwidth & CPU spewing crap onto the 'Net from the 1389 viruses installed. So, yeah, I think the end user will put up with the fact some sites are slower on their DSL line and not look to change providers. And they will slowly migrate to the faster sites - i.e. the ones who pay for the front of the queue. Also, no one has talked about the ideas proposed in Vixie's second link: That the big content providers are willing to pay a 'little' to raise the bar of entry. A few million bux a year to each of the RBOCs in the US would be a rounding error in Google's bottom line, but it would make it nearly impossible for a 'start-up' to make it. Doesn't that scare anyone?
In contrast, streaming video and audio from iTMS starts to play a lot quicker. It sounds like the problems with jitter and latency over private IP networks is overstated if it still works fine over the Internet.
(FWIW, this is on 1Mb/s ADSL that is 170ms from www.apple.com.)
Yeah, but you don't get iTMS stuff from www.apple.com. I'm betting you are a LOT closer to iTMS. :-) -- TTFN, patrick
Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
And if you are spending the extra money to implement preferential treatment, can you be sure that there is a market willing to pay extra for this?
And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole. Pete
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole.
If you have an 8meg ADSL line and want to deliver IPTV you need some kind of preferential treatment to the TV packets on this access line to ensure quality, for instance in the case of the user doing a file transfer at the same time they're watching TV. Should anyone be able to request this preferential treatment, perhaps even without a contract? Should we trust TOS values across the net? If not, who should we trust? The argument that QoS in the core is a moot point or not can be left behind, if you're talking access, then some kind of intelligent queueing is needed to ensure low packetloss for realtime services. Giving each customer a 100M pipe might sound good but it's not really economically feasable in the short term. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If you have an 8meg ADSL line and want to deliver IPTV you need some kind of preferential treatment to the TV packets on this access line to ensure quality, for instance in the case of the user doing a file transfer at the same time they're watching TV.
Provided that IPTV or VoIP are the only [large] datagram streams in progress, this is not difficult to do on the CPE end -- in fact, this sort of thing is already available as a QoS option in some home router appliances. It involves scaling back TCP streams so that they leave enough headroom for the in-progress IPTV or VoIP. -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Todd Vierling wrote:
Provided that IPTV or VoIP are the only [large] datagram streams in progress, this is not difficult to do on the CPE end -- in fact, this sort of thing is already available as a QoS option in some home router appliances. It involves scaling back TCP streams so that they leave enough headroom for the in-progress IPTV or VoIP.
Doing QoS on the CPE side of the access link is always risky, you can't really create any guarantees there since it's already "too late", you're not the one doing the buffering. Especially since a lot of L2/L3 DSLAMs don't have a lot of buffers (40ms on ADSL2+ 24meg in one of my tests), you really have to strangle TCP in order to guarantee that you TV packets aren't dropped. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
pete@he.iki.fi (Petri Helenius) writes:
And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole.
the former, in the current and following quarter. the latter, in the current and following year. (can you all guess which timescale harvard business school teaches american executives and politicians to think and act within?) -- Paul Vixie
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:54:34 +0100 (CET), "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se> said:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do "some packets are more equal than others" here in Europe, except for the mobile people with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network into a new division with a specific remit to provide open access to all ISPs and alt- tels who want it.
I'm sorry if I made the impression that it is already happening. Now it's a game on the political arena, and it's important to support the RIR-communities' efforts to provide balanced information to decision-makers.
My guess would be that basically everybody doing triple play will prioritize the IPTV and VoIP packets in their network including the access. Considering that streaming UDP IPTV requires very very low packet loss, much better than Best Effort, this is needed to provide a good quality service.
If you do LLQ you want to make sure you can control what goes into that class, that can be done several ways, including disallowing anything you don't know about (transit/ix) to go there.
This is preferential treatment for some packets and it makes perfect technological sense.
Preferential treatment of value-added services in the providers own network is just fine. It's down-prioritizing competing services that may become a problem. Like blocking all VoIP traffic not using the providers' own "gateway-service". //per -- Per Heldal http://heldal.eml.cc/
On 20-Jan-2006, at 07:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do "some packets are more equal than others" here in Europe, except for the mobile people with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network into a new division with a specific remit to provide open access to all ISPs and alt- tels who want it.
My guess would be that basically everybody doing triple play will prioritize the IPTV and VoIP packets in their network including the access. Considering that streaming UDP IPTV requires very very low packet loss, much better than Best Effort, this is needed to provide a good quality service.
Perhaps this additional networking complexity (and hence cost, at some level, presumably) will allow peoples' eyes to be opened to the fact that the majority of television being viewed over the Internet today is done asynchronously, through peer-to-peer, file-sharing networks. It amuses me to think of early-adopting consumers receiving all their expensive, network-optimised television shows in real-time on their TiVOs, only to have them recorded to disk and watched days later. (Recorded onto hard disks with no DRM, no less, ready to be encoded and uploaded to eDonkey :-) If content distribution companies would accept this as the final outcome, then sticking a torrent client on the set-top-box and feeding it from an RSS feed starts to seem a lot cheaper than encumbering every access network with traffic shaping. Joe
On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Perhaps this additional networking complexity (and hence cost, at some level, presumably) will allow peoples' eyes to be opened to the fact that the majority of television being viewed over the Internet today is done asynchronously, through peer-to-peer, file- sharing networks.
It amuses me to think of early-adopting consumers receiving all their expensive, network-optimised television shows in real-time on their TiVOs, only to have them recorded to disk and watched days later. (Recorded onto hard disks with no DRM, no less, ready to be encoded and uploaded to eDonkey :-)
If content distribution companies would accept this as the final outcome, then sticking a torrent client on the set-top-box and feeding it from an RSS feed starts to seem a lot cheaper than encumbering every access network with traffic shaping.
Agreed - mostly. Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and people will pay for them. But satellite seems like a perfectly reasonable and cost-efficient means of distribution without going through anyone's right-of-way. I mean, seriously, do you think anyone is going to WAIT to see Victoria's Secret Fashion Show? :-) -- TTFN, patrick
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and people will pay for them.
That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out in contrast to my rampant generalisations. For news, however, stories seem to break on the web long before they usually reach the television. Anybody who really wants to hear about things as they happen are probably best to avoid the traditional news networks anyway. As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or basketball at all, never mind in real time. Joe (running away quickly now)
On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and people will pay for them.
That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out in contrast to my rampant generalisations.
I think we are in very close agreement here. Although you bring up a good point. At least here in the US, there is the "emergency broadcast system", a way to break into the TV feed in "real time" in case of emergency. It was designed because, well, us dumb americans are glued to the boob tube 24/7, so what better way to say "GET THE HELL OUT NOW!"? :-) Things like "breaking in" to TV feeds are not really useful if everything is pre-recorded and stored locally.
For news, however, stories seem to break on the web long before they usually reach the television. Anybody who really wants to hear about things as they happen are probably best to avoid the traditional news networks anyway.
As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or basketball at all, never mind in real time.
I didn't say they were BRIGHT or TASTEFUL, just that people would pay for it. Hell, people use Pay-Per-View for WWE, even after they admitted it was staged. No one has ever gone broke underestimating the US public.... Then again, I like US "football". :-)
Joe (running away quickly now)
As you should. We might not be smart, but we can kick Canada's ass! -- TTFN, patrick
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:41:20AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: ...
As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or basketball at all, never mind in real time. ...
Joe, I must take issue with the above. You omitted a comma after "baseball". Correct communications are essential, eh? ;-) -- Joe Yao ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This message is not an official statement of OSIS Center policies.
If something like the slingbox catches on.... www.slingmedia.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gilmore Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:26 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore Subject: Re: is this like a peering war somehow? On Jan 20, 2006, at 11:16 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Perhaps this additional networking complexity (and hence cost, at some level, presumably) will allow peoples' eyes to be opened to the fact that the majority of television being viewed over the Internet today is done asynchronously, through peer-to-peer, file- sharing networks.
It amuses me to think of early-adopting consumers receiving all their expensive, network-optimised television shows in real-time on their TiVOs, only to have them recorded to disk and watched days later. (Recorded onto hard disks with no DRM, no less, ready to be encoded and uploaded to eDonkey :-)
If content distribution companies would accept this as the final outcome, then sticking a torrent client on the set-top-box and feeding it from an RSS feed starts to seem a lot cheaper than encumbering every access network with traffic shaping.
Agreed - mostly. Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and people will pay for them. But satellite seems like a perfectly reasonable and cost-efficient means of distribution without going through anyone's right-of-way. I mean, seriously, do you think anyone is going to WAIT to see Victoria's Secret Fashion Show? :-) -- TTFN, patrick
From: "Doug Marschke" <doug@ipath.net> Subject: RE: is this like a peering war somehow?
If something like the slingbox catches on....
www.slingmedia.com
From the sling community forum:
Hello before yall get to excited about verizon it looks like they are cancelling users who use too much bandwith. " Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. "
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:06:39 -1000, Michael Painter said:
Hello before yall get to excited about verizon it looks like they are cancelling users who use too much bandwith.
" Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. "
Might as well stick with 56K dialup at that point....
Michael Painter wrote:
From: "Doug Marschke" <doug@ipath.net> Subject: RE: is this like a peering war somehow?
If something like the slingbox catches on....
www.slingmedia.com
From the sling community forum:
Hello before yall get to excited about verizon it looks like they are cancelling users who use too much bandwith.
" Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. "
I believe those are the rules for Verizon Wireless and not for Verizon DSL etc. Verizon Wireless and Verizon are actually separate. Roy
participants (21)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
Alexander Harrowell -
Daniel Golding -
David Ulevitch -
Doug Marschke -
Edward B. DREGER -
James -
Joe Abley -
Joseph S D Yao -
Michael Painter -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Vixie -
Paul Vixie -
Per Heldal -
Petri Helenius -
Roy -
Sean Donelan -
Todd Vierling -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu