Re: [nanog] Re: Microsoft offering xDSL access
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.
Of course, this is orthogonal to xDSL; the same economies of scale would apply with T-1 local loops. Seems to me that for the RBOCs, the big disadvantage of xDSL is losing all those fat, high-margin T-1 local loop fees. The advantage is getting a shot at taking over the Internet business. Jim Shankland Flying Fox Computer Systems, Inc.
At 09:19 AM 1/23/98 -0800, Jim Shankland wrote:
Of course, this is orthogonal to xDSL; the same economies of scale would apply with T-1 local loops.
Seems to me that for the RBOCs, the big disadvantage of xDSL is losing all those fat, high-margin T-1 local loop fees.
Two problems with this... 1) If the RBOCs try to keep status quo with the T1 situation, the cable companies may eventually eat the RBOCs' lunch. 2) The RBOCs can deploy fewer HDSL-based T1s due to Near-End cross-Talk (NEXT) concerns... ADSL doesn't have a NEXT problem so they can deploy many more ADSL loops than HDSL loops in the same cable sheath... In this case, volume will win over keeping prices high... --zawada Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 630 686 7825 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 11:56:44AM -0600, Paul J. Zawada wrote:
At 09:19 AM 1/23/98 -0800, Jim Shankland wrote:
Of course, this is orthogonal to xDSL; the same economies of scale would apply with T-1 local loops.
Seems to me that for the RBOCs, the big disadvantage of xDSL is losing all those fat, high-margin T-1 local loop fees.
Two problems with this...
1) If the RBOCs try to keep status quo with the T1 situation, the cable companies may eventually eat the RBOCs' lunch.
2) The RBOCs can deploy fewer HDSL-based T1s due to Near-End cross-Talk (NEXT) concerns... ADSL doesn't have a NEXT problem so they can deploy many more ADSL loops than HDSL loops in the same cable sheath... In this case, volume will win over keeping prices high...
--zawada
Paul J. Zawada, RCDD | Senior Network Engineer zawada@ncsa.uiuc.edu | National Center for Supercomputing Applications +1 630 686 7825 | http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/People/zawada
The problem isn't the local loop. Its how you get the data anywhere ELSE after the local loop has provided its piece. A T1 from us, for example, is $600 a month - WITHOUT the circuit. Its $600 regardless of whether you use tin cans and string, a HDSL DS1, a traditional DS1, a wireless DS1 using whatever, or genies flying around with the bits. The reason is that the local loop cost is not included in the price! Now, ADSL can affect local loop prices (downward). What it can't do is change the basics of how data is transported on a national and international scale, and THAT is where the cost components that go into the $600 fee come from. Anyone claiming they can deliver T1 speeds for $30-40 a month is lying given the current state of interconnection expense across real distances. Quest and others laying fiber will not lower these costs by 95%, which is PRECISELY what has to happen to hit those targets. Now, if you want to *CLAIM* DS1 speeds but actually deliver something that looks more like an ISDN connection, then its possible. But where I come from advertising something you can't deliver is commonly known as fraud. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Now, if you want to *CLAIM* DS1 speeds but actually deliver something that looks more like an ISDN connection, then its possible.
T1 into a local provider is still T1, though. The main bandwidth consumers hereabouts are HTTP, NNTP, and DNS. All of these are "cacheable" at the local provider, and having T1 access to those data repositories is still quite useful. Not all traffic has to go to the other side of the planet.
But where I come from advertising something you can't deliver is commonly known as fraud.
We just call that "marketing" around here. But your point is valid: this low-cost last-mile service should be described in terms of access to the ISP's local resources (which will therefore have to grow a lot from now). Hell, maybe there's something in this transparent caching idea after all? Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
We've got 40 T1 ADSL customers coming into a single 1.1Mb SMDS connection Traffic is around %3 to %5 on average with occasional spikes to %50 or %100 for short periods. Im guessing this behaviour is due to a single PC at the customers side -- limitations on how much traffic a single user can generate - how much bandwidth a single stream uses. With a DS3 you could get perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 "T1" customers is a rough guess. Look at @Home's model for example. Stb
At 02:34 PM 1/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
We've got 40 T1 ADSL customers coming into a single 1.1Mb SMDS connection
And I'll bet they're all at different speeds as well, both TX and RX. It sounds like you have to play it by ear, that coming up with some mathematical model is *almost* impossible. 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
You can't shape to a model you can't develop, but if you're already established, with those 40 customers you can develop a bandwidth-distribution layout and rather simply predict trends.. If you are in a highly volatile market, which xDSL doesn't seem to be quite yet :), this would be impossible, but adding customers at a constant rate with no changing technology would imply a constant trend.. Of course, as soon as technology changes that is no longer valid :), but.. alter the model on a monthly basis? .. I wonder if RX and TX equalize at some point? If you have enough static [customers] machines connected to be transmitting data at a steady level? I'd be curious to see some numbers on that.. -greg
Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
We've got 40 T1 ADSL customers coming into a single 1.1Mb SMDS connection
And I'll bet they're all at different speeds as well, both TX and RX. It sounds like you have to play it by ear, that coming up with some mathematical model is *almost* impossible.
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
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 02:34:02PM -0500, Stephen Balbach wrote:
We've got 40 T1 ADSL customers coming into a single 1.1Mb SMDS connection
Traffic is around %3 to %5 on average with occasional spikes to %50 or %100 for short periods. Im guessing this behaviour is due to a single PC at the customers side -- limitations on how much traffic a single user can generate - how much bandwidth a single stream uses. With a DS3 you could get perhaps 5,000 to 10,000 "T1" customers is a rough guess. Look at @Home's model for example.
Fine, but if I can get a "T-1" for $50 a month, I'm gonna put it in every apartment building and condo in town and make a lot of money. Until the "T-1" turns out not to be, at which point I'll be joining the class action lawsuit. 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
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 10:55:17AM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Now, if you want to *CLAIM* DS1 speeds but actually deliver something that looks more like an ISDN connection, then its possible.
T1 into a local provider is still T1, though. The main bandwidth consumers hereabouts are HTTP, NNTP, and DNS. All of these are "cacheable" at the local provider, and having T1 access to those data repositories is still quite useful. Not all traffic has to go to the other side of the planet.
Well, yes and no. NNTP absolutely is. DNS is low-volume enough that its irrelavent. HTTP is not nearly as cacheable as you would think, and caching it has some bad side effects in many cases - which your customers will likely bitch about.
But where I come from advertising something you can't deliver is commonly known as fraud.
We just call that "marketing" around here. But your point is valid: this low-cost last-mile service should be described in terms of access to the ISP's local resources (which will therefore have to grow a lot from now). Hell, maybe there's something in this transparent caching idea after all?
Let's say that you can cache 50% of the HTTP traffic, which frankly, from what I've seen is HIGHLY aggressive, but I'll be nice and give you that for the sake of argument.
Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
Ok, so its only 500:1 assuming 50% effectiveness on the HTTP side. It still won't work. Now, if you intend to rate-shape (as opposed to tossing packets on the floor when you get overcommitted) then you ARE committing fraud if you don't tell the truth about it. And, frankly, the customer really gets hosed with this kind of model - because you have to be pretty predictive for this to give you any kind of net gain in effective utilization, which means you apply the chokes BEFORE the peak levels get hit. The business models on which this stuff is based are full of assumptions that anyone who has been in this business for more than a week knows won't work in the real world. At least, not in the world that we call the "Internet". Now if you want to set up a private network which is called and is in fact something less than that (ie: "Citynet"), you might be able to make it work. Maybe. The people running around shouting that "bandwidth will be too cheap to meter" sound a LOT like the crowd that was doing this in relationship to Nuclear Power and electricity 20 years ago. Today, the TRUTH is that Nuclear energy is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity, and in fact its SO expensive that places like Illinois, where ComEd generates a lot of it from that form, don't have enough on peak demand days and have to pipe it in and/or start turning people off! -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
HTTP is not nearly as cacheable as you would think, and caching it has some bad side effects in many cases - which your customers will likely bitch about.
(temptation to advertise a product here resisted with some difficulty.)
Let's say that you can cache 50% of the HTTP traffic, which frankly, from what I've seen is HIGHLY aggressive, but I'll be nice and give you that for the sake of argument.
50% is easy with two level caching. you just need fat pipes between the two levels, and high availability at the root of the hierarchy, and a LOT of users to help get as much variety as possible in the requests. i've seen 65% when the wind was behind it.
Ok, so its only 500:1 assuming 50% effectiveness on the HTTP side.
It still won't work.
Now, if you intend to rate-shape (as opposed to tossing packets on the floor when you get overcommitted) then you ARE committing fraud if you don't tell the truth about it. And, frankly, the customer really gets hosed with this kind of model - because you have to be pretty predictive for this to give you any kind of net gain in effective utilization, which means you apply the chokes BEFORE the peak levels get hit.
and this differs from the cable modem internet market in precisely which way?
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 11:55:19AM -0800, Paul A Vixie wrote:
HTTP is not nearly as cacheable as you would think, and caching it has some bad side effects in many cases - which your customers will likely bitch about.
(temptation to advertise a product here resisted with some difficulty.)
Let's say that you can cache 50% of the HTTP traffic, which frankly, from what I've seen is HIGHLY aggressive, but I'll be nice and give you that for the sake of argument.
50% is easy with two level caching. you just need fat pipes between the two levels, and high availability at the root of the hierarchy, and a LOT of users to help get as much variety as possible in the requests. i've seen 65% when the wind was behind it.
Ok, so its only 500:1 assuming 50% effectiveness on the HTTP side.
It still won't work.
Now, if you intend to rate-shape (as opposed to tossing packets on the floor when you get overcommitted) then you ARE committing fraud if you don't tell the truth about it. And, frankly, the customer really gets hosed with this kind of model - because you have to be pretty predictive for this to give you any kind of net gain in effective utilization, which means you apply the chokes BEFORE the peak levels get hit.
and this differs from the cable modem internet market in precisely which way?
Uh, it doesn't :-) (I've done the analysis of this for a cable company a couple of years ago). -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service | NEW! K56Flex support on ALL modems Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
The business models on which this stuff is based are full of assumptions that anyone who has been in this business for more than a week knows won't work in the real world.
While most business models require a feedback loop that is frequently missing in Internet businesses (assume traffic characteristics, measure network, correct business model) all of these kinds of tiered service depend on classes of customers and their usage patterns. If I have classes of customer that uses a T1 service differently, it is completely reasonable to sell it differently. For example, if I have a 10 Mb/s cable modem, but *on average* use it like a 28.8kb/s modem, then why should I pay for a full 10 Mb/s of bits that I am not sending/receiving? If I get the 10 Mb/s access but it is engineered to deliver 56k based on my customer class useage patterns, is that fraud? I think not. What if I advertise it as 100 times faster than a standard modem? Still not fraud. Now, if I as a residential cable modem user set up a pay per view web site that makes cool site of the world, I am do not fit the class of customer profile. The key issue in all this is what the provider will do with outliers, and if the prediction of outliers matches the experience of outliers. Another way to look at this is that it is in effect a pay per bit system, that, combined with customer useage assumptions, gives a a tiered service pricing offered over one type of access. Most ISPs do not price their T1 service assuming 100% useage 100% of the time. $35/mo over a T1/ADSL/Cable modem is just an extention of this practice with different assumptions. Eric Carroll eric.carroll@acm.org Tekton Internet Associates
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Paul A Vixie wrote:
Nobody in their right mind would sell T1 to every customer and do 1000:1 overcommit of their transit links without some kind of bandwidth shaping. Since that shaping is part of the engineering plan, the marketroids will have to find some way to come clean about it in the advertising glossies.
Funny, last year in Boston I spoke to a rep from Highway1 (Media1's Internet division) wherein he stated that they planned to sell off 2,000 cable modem links (subscribers) from a single T3 while promising 10Mbps speeds to the home. I pointed out this was an oversale ratio of something like 400:1. He countered that I must not understand the statistics of network traffic. I countered that he must be engaged in wishful thinking if he expected end users not to push the limits of technology and expect the moon for only $19.95 per month. I predicted that people would decide that CUCEEME (sp?) was too cool to live without and that they would want to listen to their neighbor's CD audio over the 'net. Needless to say, we parted company with neither having been convinced by the other. So in general the cable companies seem to believe in high oversale ratios, although not perhaps in the thousands. David
On Fri, Jan 23, 1998 at 12:12:49PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
A T1 from us, for example, is $600 a month - WITHOUT the circuit.
Its $600 regardless of whether you use tin cans and string, a HDSL DS1, a traditional DS1, a wireless DS1 using whatever, or genies flying around with the bits.
The reason is that the local loop cost is not included in the price!
Now, ADSL can affect local loop prices (downward). What it can't do is change the basics of how data is transported on a national and international scale, and THAT is where the cost components that go into the $600 fee come from.
Anyone claiming they can deliver T1 speeds for $30-40 a month is lying given the current state of interconnection expense across real distances. Quest and others laying fiber will not lower these costs by 95%, which is PRECISELY what has to happen to hit those targets.
Save your breath, Karl; I've been banging this drum for _months_ now, or more, in a half dozen venues, and no one's getting it. The only thing I can figure is that the morons in question are going to quote, for legal purposes, "peak" or "burst" bandwidth, which is moderately safe initially, because the initial customer base will be largely surfers... but if you give people bandwidth like that full time, the server population will _skyrocket_... which they won't account for... the cableco's have already blown this one. 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
The only thing I can figure is that the morons in question are going to quote, for legal purposes, "peak" or "burst" bandwidth, ...
Well, sure. Let's have a show of hands: today, who gets 53Kbits/sec throughput on an X56 dialup? Who gets 1.544Mbit/sec throughput on a T1? Hmmn, looks pretty quiet out there. Everyone's overcommitted, nobody can provide full pipe bandwidth on the connections they're selling now. This isn't news. It's also true that customers are going to get crabby if there isn't a lot of local bits that they can get to with their spiffy ADSL connection, but the telcos may have a small clue. There's an ADSL trial down the road in Ithaca which is very successful, and one of the big reasons is that the users for the most part are connecting to Cornell University which has both more internal and external bandwidth than most continents. I talked to the local Time-Warner guy, who agrees that when they install Roadrunner, they'll get a connection to Cornell as well (which won't be hard, since Cornell is talking to them now about buying bandwidth to connect up around town.) I suspect that the real market for xDSL will be as much telecommuting as web surfing, and so long as the telecommuters have a fast enough connection to the office which will probably not be very far away, that's all they care about. -- 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 Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 04:09:49PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote:
The only thing I can figure is that the morons in question are going to quote, for legal purposes, "peak" or "burst" bandwidth, ...
Well, sure.
Let's have a show of hands: today, who gets 53Kbits/sec throughput on an X56 dialup? Who gets 1.544Mbit/sec throughput on a T1? Hmmn, looks pretty quiet out there.
Everyone's overcommitted, nobody can provide full pipe bandwidth on the connections they're selling now. This isn't news.
yes, but those people aren't usually selling a wide enough hose to make it useful for resale or server operation, which the ADSL stuff _will_. It's a different target audience, because of that, and I don't think they get it.
I suspect that the real market for xDSL will be as much telecommuting as web surfing, and so long as the telecommuters have a fast enough connection to the office which will probably not be very far away, that's all they care about.
_I_ think it will be "personal printing presses", as much as anything else. But I've been wrong before. Course, I've been _right_ before, too... 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 Managing Editor, Top Of The Key sports e-zine ------------ http://www.totk.org
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 04:09:49PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote:
Everyone's overcommitted, nobody can provide full pipe bandwidth on the connections they're selling now. This isn't news.
yes, but those people aren't usually selling a wide enough hose to make it useful for resale or server operation, which the ADSL stuff _will_.
No it isn't useful for resale or server operation. Your upstream bandwidth isa fraction of the downstream bandwidth when using ADSL (e.g. 1.5Mbps vs. 384Kbps). HDSL and SDSL are a different story. -- "Gas, grass, or ass, nobody rides for free."
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Anyone claiming they can deliver T1 speeds for $30-40 a month is lying given the current state of interconnection expense across real distances. Quest and others laying fiber will not lower these costs by 95%, which is PRECISELY what has to happen to hit those targets.
Save your breath, Karl; I've been banging this drum for _months_ now, or more, in a half dozen venues, and no one's getting it.
Let's use the oh-so-lovely information superhighway metaphor for a moment. Imagine a city street with lovely homes on it, large lots, beautiful flower gardens in front, children laughing and playing. Now imagine the specifications for this street and for the driveways coming off it. Those zoning rules and engineering plans say that the street and the driveways must be engineered to handle a full size semi truck. The street needs to be wide enough and straight enough to accomodate such trucks and the driveways have to be wide enough that such a truck can turn into them. But wait, what's that sign at the end of the street!? NO TRUCKS! Horrors, there is a legal case here of mammoth proportions. When a street is designed to handle truck traffic then there must be an implicit promise that trucks can drive there. Who cares if the residents are annoyed by truck traffic. They have no choice in the matter, they are mere homeowners, not designers and builders of *ROADS*!!! There are no simple answers to any of the network problems posed by the widespread deployment of ADSL, but one thing is sure. The solutions will not all come from the domain of network engineering. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
On Sat, Jan 24, 1998 at 12:13:14PM -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
Save your breath, Karl; I've been banging this drum for _months_ now, or more, in a half dozen venues, and no one's getting it.
Let's use the oh-so-lovely information superhighway metaphor for a moment. Imagine a city street with lovely homes on it, large lots, beautiful flower gardens in front, children laughing and playing. Now imagine the specifications for this street and for the driveways coming off it. Those zoning rules and engineering plans say that the street and the driveways must be engineered to handle a full size semi truck. The street needs to be wide enough and straight enough to accomodate such trucks and the driveways have to be wide enough that such a truck can turn into them.
But wait, what's that sign at the end of the street!? NO TRUCKS! Horrors, there is a legal case here of mammoth proportions. When a street is designed to handle truck traffic then there must be an implicit promise that trucks can drive there. Who cares if the residents are annoyed by truck traffic. They have no choice in the matter, they are mere homeowners, not designers and builders of *ROADS*!!!
Yes, Michael, but, c'mon, this _is_ a weak analogy. Happens my dad was a traffic engineer for 20 years, up North<tm>, and I can tell you that while you _can_ take a moving van into a residential neighborhood occasionally, if you tried to traverse those roads on a regular basis with trucks loaded more heavily loaded than that, you'd find that, in fact, those streets _are not_ designed for truck traffic. Also, the _reason_ for that is that external constraints make it impossible _to_ design residential streets for that sort of traffic -- which is usually not the case in the environment we're discussing. Unfortunately, that's not really the argument we're having. The argument we're having is that we really wish the developers would quit advertising that the subdivision _is_ designed for trucks, then getting annoyed when all kinds of truck drivers try to buy houses there, and get pissed when they find out the developers _lied_.
There are no simple answers to any of the network problems posed by the widespread deployment of ADSL, but one thing is sure. The solutions will not all come from the domain of network engineering.
Nope, many of them will come from false-advertising prosecutions by the FTC, unless the providers get a clue. People _want_ big hoses into their houses... and a noticeable chunk of those people do _not_ want them for the reason that the big marketroids _think_ they do. If they don't get a clue, they're going to be up for fiduciary duty lawsuits from their shareholders... and I'll go buy a share, just for the privilege of filing. 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
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
There are no simple answers to any of the network problems posed by the widespread deployment of ADSL, but one thing is sure. The solutions will not all come from the domain of network engineering.
Nope, many of them will come from false-advertising prosecutions by the FTC,
Then you agree that we don't need to discuss the topic here, correct? -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (13)
-
Eric M. Carroll -
Greg Simpson -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jim Shankland -
johnl＠iecc.com -
Karl Denninger -
M. David Leonard -
Martin Hannigan -
Michael Dillon -
Paul A Vixie -
Paul J. Zawada -
Sharif Torpis -
Stephen Balbach