Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
We do its called FIOS. ----- Original Message ----- From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this? https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?<br> -- No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com
well... hard to tell... Secure Connection Failed asahi-net.jp uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted. that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it. --bill On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:00:47PM -0500, Guy_Shields@Stream.Com wrote:
We do its called FIOS.
----- Original Message ----- From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this?
https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?<br>
well... hard to tell...
Secure Connection Failed
asahi-net.jp uses an invalid security certificate.
The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted.
that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it.
--bill Anyone find a 'Commodity' seller of IP connectivity that will provide
Hello Bill , On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: that ?I haven't in a Number of years now . Imo , it appears to be company cowardice . But then again alot can go wrong even if you filter correctly . But I'd really like to find a provider that 'Can' . Just like the little train . Twyal , JimL
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:00:47PM -0500, Guy_Shields@Stream.Com wrote:
We do its called FIOS.
----- Original Message ----- From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this?
https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?<br>
-- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network&System Engineer | 2133 McCullam Ave | Give me Linux | | babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99701 | only on AXP | +------------------------------------------------------------------+
[Sorry to bring this back towards the topic at hand, but....] On Jul 26, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it.
Anyone find a 'Commodity' seller of IP connectivity that will provide that ?I haven't in a Number of years now . Imo , it appears to be company cowardice . But then again alot can go wrong even if you filter correctly . But I'd really like to find a provider that 'Can' . Just like the little train .
First, I should say that I am not defending VZ or any other company. However, I don't think it's fair to claim VZ sells FIOS and therefore should also sell dark. The two items are vastly different services. I seriously doubt "cowardice" is stopping VZ from giving bill fiber. Hell, they'd likely make a LOT more money off selling him dark than selling him FIOS. There are lots of providers in major metros (where I know bill lives) that sell things like 10 Mbps point-to-point circuits. But dark fiber is frequently hard to come by even between two telco hotels in the same city. Asking for dark fiber from $RANDOM_HOUSE to, well, anywhere, that's going to be just a little out of the ordinary. So if you want to complain about something, complain about something reasonable. Lord knows the telecos have given us enough targets. -- TTFN, patrick
that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it.
Yup. They got what they wanted. They got concessions to build Clinton's (stupidly named) Information Superhighway, including what some believe to be two HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in incentives, which the telcos happily took and gave us ... darn near nothing ... in return. Certainly not what was promised. http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm Obviously this has its own axe to grind, but anyone who doesn't understand the fundamental truth, that the telcos greedily accepted this, took the money, and then ended up complaining and lobbying until they were allowed to provide much less, virtually noncompetitively, on terms extremely favorable to their own interests, well, if you don't get that, you're blind. The problem with the free market is that it doesn't work in the public's best interest, but rather in the best interest of the companies involved. This is both a blessing and a curse. Had things developed in the way that was intended, there would have been a virtual decimation of the existing communications companies, and the Internet might have suffered a good bit as well. I think we'd have gotten over it, though, and certainly we'd be much better connected now. The challenges would be very interesting. Imagine being faced with the prospect of having customers wanting to use 45 megabits of bidirectional capacity. You'd have to find some interesting new technologies. Like the InterneTiVo I was talking about a while back. ;-) ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:53:29 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
Obviously this has its own axe to grind, but anyone who doesn't understand the fundamental truth, that the telcos greedily accepted this, took the money, and then ended up complaining and lobbying until they were allowed to provide much less, virtually noncompetitively, on terms extremely favorable to their own interests, well, if you don't get that, you're blind.
The problem with the free market is that it doesn't work in the public's best interest, but rather in the best interest of the companies involved.
Say What? You talk about government mandated monopolies, government subsidies and massive government regulation and then point to it as a failure of the free market? Do you even know what "free market" means? -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:53:29 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
Obviously this has its own axe to grind, but anyone who doesn't understand the fundamental truth, that the telcos greedily accepted this, took the money, and then ended up complaining and lobbying until they were allowed to provide much less, virtually noncompetitively, on terms extremely favorable to their own interests, well, if you don't get that, you're blind.
The problem with the free market is that it doesn't work in the public's best interest, but rather in the best interest of the companies involved.
Say What? You talk about government mandated monopolies, government subsidies and massive government regulation and then point to it as a failure of the free market? Do you even know what "free market" means?
Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to take the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while everyone else is doing the same thing. Normally, this might merely result in the sort of situation you have with Wal-Mart vs K-Mart vs Target, where the consumer gets to trade off different variables (quality of goods, price of goods, condition of store, etc). In the case of telecommunications, however, certain telecommunications companies looked around at the situation and determined it was most easily accomplished by lobbying the government for pseudo-monopoly status, in exchange for promises of an "open network," followed by repeated backpedaling so they wind up providing less on a closed-to-the-competition network, and an easily hoodwinked government that agrees to all of this, with the end result that you wind up with a monopoly (or duopoly). By doing so, one (two) large corporation "wins," maximizing profit while minimizing expenditures *and* competition. The free market created this situation, because, without separation of the network from the service providers, or without stern and fair oversight and regulation, the natural tendency of the free market system will be for the party that owns the last mile infrastructure to see it as "theirs" (hello Ed Whitacre!) and to try to make it as difficult as possible for the competition. This results in things like Ameritech selling wholesale DSL circuits to CLEC's and ISP's for *more* than what they're selling them at retail for via Ameritech's own ISP service. If it isn't readily apparent that I understand what "free market" means, and how our government has caved in to give us anything BUT a free market, well, sigh. The free market has a really tough time operating in an environment where the government ultimately enables and gives a blank check to monopolies. The telcos might disagree... it's a free market... they're free to market whatever they want. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to take the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while everyone else is doing the same thing.
Recognizing your biases here, I think an economist might define it a little differently. For example, see http://www.investorwords.com/2086/free_market.html . The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
Fred Baker wrote:
The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
I have always understood the issue to be the presence or absence of unfettered competition. Competition is good. It's lack is bad. Government can be one source of fettering. So can monopolization. So can post-purchase lock-in. Anything that restricts the ability of the consumer to make on-going choices for alternate sources of products and services. Which is to say, anything that alters the incentives of companies to provide better products at better prices. We ought to stop saying 'free' and instead say 'competitive'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Dave Crocker wrote:
I have always understood the issue to be the presence or absence of unfettered competition. Competition is good. It's lack is bad.
The problem is that it is rather hard to enable full competitive environment in the last mile. No city, no citizen wants to have 300 wires running along the poles on streets. In fact, a properly managed monopoly (with rules to grant access to the last mile) can probably financially justify deploying fibre to the home far more easily than in a competitive environment. The big problem in north america is whoever decided to make ADSL work on old copper. Had ADSL never materialised, the telcos would have been forced to put fibre to the homes. But now that they have invested in the ADSL quagmire, it becomes much harder for them to justify fibre to the home. But a CEO with vision would get the telco to stop deploying remotes everywhere and leverage the fibre's ability to reach longer distances and cover neighbourhoods with far fewer remote/nodes. The problem is that CEOs are not hired for their vision, they are hired for their ability to please wall street casino analysts (who in term please shareholders with their articles in the various wall street casino newspapers/magazines). Competition only works when the goal is to please customers. It does not work when the goal is to screw customers as much as they will tolerate. (Consider mobile telephony in north america, especially Rogers/Bell/Telus in canada).
On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to take the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while everyone else is doing the same thing.
Recognizing your biases here, I think an economist might define it a little differently. For example, see http://www.investorwords.com/2086/free_market.html ..
The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better. The main problem is that it isn't economically feasible for dozens of providers to each build their own last mile infrastructure. In what has got to be an unusual turn of events, we ended up with multiple last mile infrastructures (cable, DSL, maybe wireless). The goal of the National Information Infrastructure was to have a single fiber entering the home, providing net, tone, tele, etc. As a practical matter, it was always assumed that the most likely way that this would happen would be for the telcos to do it, replacing copper plant in the process. To that end, a lot of changes and concessions were granted to the telcos, to pay them for building this thing. This part was certainly always pictured to be a government subsidy or government granted "monopoly", because it makes as little sense to have multiple players here as it does for there to be multiple power companies delivering power, or multiple water utilities, etc. However, what happens at the upstream node was very much intended to be a free market system, with the LM-telco providing equal access to everyone. Including themselves. And that's the problem, there. The incentive to provide nonequal access to themselves is quite high, and without any meaningful regulation of the last mile portion of their business, lack of regulation being what they fought tooth and nail for, that's how it ended up. So now you have ILEC's not doing fiber-to-the-home because it "isn't economical or needed," which many feel is a rip-off, since the ILEC's were compensated for their trouble and they took the funds and translated it to profit. Then you had the ILEC's trying to block CLEC access to the facilities. This ranged from "our CO is full, we have no space for them" to denying access for failure to comply with ever-changing rules that they don't notify anybody about in a reasonable fashion (http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-clec/0801/msg00006.html) When it became clear that the CLEC's were still going to try to do business, you then saw a move towards deployment of things like FIOS and Lightspeed, combined with lobbying, that allowed CLEC-lockout on the new, faster DSL networks. I'm not going to go further, or into more detail, because this is pretty much nonoperational in nature, except that it's a sin that most people in the networking business think that what has happened is equitable, or is fair, or makes any sense. We wanted a fast, neutral last mile network. Had we regulated the last mile provider properly, we could have had it. That would have left us with a network where true free market forces could have allowed all players, including the company providing the last mile, to provide services on top of that last mile. That so clearly didn't happen. You can probably find worthwhile reading (somewhat slanted, my guess, but still likely better than the understanding most people seem to have about all this) at http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm This will be my last post along this thread, due to thread drift. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better.
Ah. I didn't realize that I just didn't understand the situation as well as you. Thanks for setting me straight. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Abraham Lincoln As I said, I mostly agree with you in your analysis. The main thing I differ on is your definition. The market is not free and just calling it free doesn't change that.
This will be my last post along this thread, due to thread drift.
Me too. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market. Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better.
Ah. I didn't realize that I just didn't understand the situation as well as you. Thanks for setting me straight.
If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Abraham Lincoln
You don';t watch television much do you. Especially the "news". We are well past "1984". -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:37:09 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
The problem with the free market is that it doesn't work in the public's best interest, but rather in the best interest of the companies involved.
Say What? You talk about government mandated monopolies, government subsidies and massive government regulation and then point to it as a failure of the free market? Do you even know what "free market" means?
Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to take the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while everyone else is doing the same thing. Normally, this might merely result in the sort of situation you have with Wal-Mart vs K-Mart vs Target, where the consumer gets to trade off different variables (quality of goods, price of goods, condition of store, etc). In the case of telecommunications, however, certain telecommunications companies looked around at the situation and determined it was most easily accomplished by lobbying the government for pseudo-monopoly status, in exchange for promises of an "open network,"
But if the government is in a position to "grant" monopoly status how can you call that "free?" Free from what?
The free market created this situation, because, without separation of
Companies lobbied for this situation. The non-free market (i.e. government) forces everyone else to stay out of the market. Force != free.
If it isn't readily apparent that I understand what "free market" means, and how our government has caved in to give us anything BUT a free market, well, sigh. The free market has a really tough time operating in an environment where the government ultimately enables and gives a blank check to monopolies.
Perhaps we are just in violent agreement disagreeing over terminology then but to me a free market is free of government interference. You seem to be describing a "market" that responds to the given situation, not a free market. This should probably be taken off list. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
[1]bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: well... hard to tell... Secure Connection Failed asahi-net.jp uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted. that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it. --bill On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:00:47PM -0500, [2]Guy_Shields@Stream.Com wrote: We do its called FIOS. ----- Original Message ----- From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: [3]nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this? [4]https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?<br> BILL, im getting bounce backs on all the email I send you, can you contact me (off thread obviously) regarding the IP allocation you set up, need to get that guy finished up? -chris References 1. mailto:bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com 2. mailto:Guy_Shields@Stream.Com 3. mailto:nanog@nanog.org 4. https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:11:39PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it.
I gather that the company providing FIOS is an unreg subsidiary, and a CLEC, and therefore doesn't have to *sell* you transport, voice or data. How they get to be in the wire centers, I'm not clear, though i understand they are. I *do* have the FIOS Tampa and National NOC phone numbers, if anyone needs them; the St Pete Times did a piece on them when they first rolled out, and were indelicate enough to use a high-res pic of their warroom as the lede, with the numbers clearly readable. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
participants (12)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Chris Stebner -
D'Arcy J.M. Cain -
Dave Crocker -
Fred Baker -
Guy_Shields＠Stream.Com -
Jay R. Ashworth -
Jean-François Mezei -
Joe Greco -
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. -
Mr. James W. Laferriere -
Patrick W. Gilmore