this sounds like ripe-atlas... only less nodes? Seems interesting, you should publish an API ... oh you do: http://probeapi.speedchecker.xyz/ you might consider donating your data to the measurement-lab.org people ... eh? I wonder if/how the QOE tests could inform things like the FTC's efforts at measuring across ATT/partner boundaries during their period post-directtv-merger? On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Janusz Jezowicz <janusz@speedchecker.xyz> wrote:

Thanks James. Sending email off-list

Janusz

On 14 December 2017 at 16:27, james jones <james.voip@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I would love access to this.

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Dec 14, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Janusz Jezowicz <janusz@speedchecker.xyz

wrote:

...

Hello,

Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules

of

...

this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.

We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.

I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc. for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be built on top of it and have capacity now.

Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more information

Thanks

Janusz Jezowicz Speedchecker Ltd

Are these your customer-owned routers? -mel beckman

On Dec 15, 2017, at 5:24 AM, Janusz Jezowicz <janusz@speedchecker.xyz> wrote:

Since these are mostly end-user routers they are on regular ISPs (like Comcast, Verizon etc). I believe this could be quite suitable for monitoring net neutrality. Feel free to ping me off-list if you would like to explore it more.

Regards,

Janusz

...

On 15 December 2017 at 13:47, Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Janusz Jezowicz <janusz@speedchecker.xyz

...

wrote:

...

Hello,

Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules of this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.

We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.

I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc. for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be built on top of it and have capacity now.

Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more information

Thanks

Janusz Jezowicz Speedchecker Ltd

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access to the buildings for ISPs. 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu пише:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:

...

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality

Mike, On Dec 16, 2017, 4:23 PM +0100, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>, wrote:

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be supporting those options with their wallets. They don’t.

The report Valdis quoted said "More than 129 million people are limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload.” This suggests that consumers don’t have the option of supporting alternatives with their wallets. Regards, -drc

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be supporting those options with their wallets. They don't.

As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon. https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is no longer being updated. How do I find out what my other options are? Thanks, Lee

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access to the buildings for ISPs.

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu пише:

...

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:

...

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here

in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality

My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs), even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's advertisements.

In my neck of the woods, most independents only sold layer 3 services. and depended upon others for layer 2 services. The independents had a booming business with those conditions and consumers had an array of choices for ISPs. Then, the layer 2 operators started offering combined layer 2/3 services at a price point below the layer 2 only price needed to get to the independents. Unsurprisingly, the consumers flocked to the cheaper services. I've always felt if a company used a public right of way to reach a consumer, they should be prohibited from being a layer 3 provider. Or, at a minimum, they need to sell layer 2 services to themselves at the same price they charge others. I've known lots of people that would be happy to compete with the big boys under those circumstances.

Try looking to see what independents might be around the area you're looking at. See if any of them are willing to expand. Many of us are chomping at the bit to expand (with competitive products), but are having a hard time nailing people down. Independents are more likely to have good customer service, not want to violate net neutrality principals, etc. Basically, are more likely to be the company you actually want. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee" <ler762@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 1:46:19 PM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out.

The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That data is available directly on their site or via some sites like broadbandnow.com

I didn't know about that - thanks. But it just confirms what I thought; my choices are comcast & verizon. There is another possibility, but $350/mo for 10Mb/s with a 24 month contract is too steep.

There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff.

My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs), even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's advertisements.

As a consumer, how much extra are you willing to pay for good service? Because I'm guessing that's about all a small independent can offer that's better than the local (mono|duo)poly. So while I think I get your point, I see it more as consumers voting with their wallets rather than voting out independents. Regards, Lee

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Lee" <ler762@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 2:16:38 PM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

On 12/16/17, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be supporting those options with their wallets. They don't.

As far as I know, my options for >50Mb/s are comcast and verizon.

https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ sez Please note: National Broadband Map data is from June 30, 2014 and is no longer being updated.

How do I find out what my other options are?

Thanks, Lee

...

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

----- Original Message -----

From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access to the buildings for ISPs.

15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu пише:

...

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:

...

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here

in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP

to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited

to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of

25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy

today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between

two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neutrality

BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from possibly Native American reservations. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin Pers" <EPers@ansencorp.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access to the buildings for ISPs. 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu пише:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:

...

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut rality

Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access as the ILEC. Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: timrutherford@c4.net To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:25:37 AM Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network The problem lies in the contracts that the big providers make the municipalities sign. Basically says that the incumbent cable provider cannot be ousted without breach of contract. The towns all sign because their only other choice is to roll out their own infrastructure which very few see the real value in. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:05 AM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network BTW: There are no government-enforced monopolies anywhere in the US, aside from possibly Native American reservations. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Edwin Pers" <EPers@ansencorp.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:03:52 AM Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network Yes, the fact that both the city I work in and the town I live in have local govt-enforced monopolies reinforces the statement that I've (and all the other people near me) been voting with our collective wallets this entire time -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network It's a consumer thing. If consumers wanted more options, they would be supporting those options with their wallets. They don't. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Max Tulyev" <maxtul@netassist.ua> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:43:54 AM Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network So for my point of view, better solution is to push some law that ease access to the buildings for ISPs. 15.12.17 19:40, valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu пише:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:47:42 -0500, Dovid Bender said:

...

What kind of internet are these devices on? With Net Neutrality gone here in the US it would be a good way to measure certain services such as SIP to see which ISP's if any are tampering with packets.

Given previous history, the answer will probably be "most of them".

"The results are not inspiring. More than 129 million people are limited to a single provider for broadband Internet access using the FCC definition of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. Out of those 129 million Americans, about 52 million must obtain Internet access from a company that has violated network neutrality protections in the past and continues to undermine the policy today.

In locations where subscribers have the benefit of limited competition, the situation isn't much better. Among the 146 million Americans with the ability to choose between two providers, 48 million Americans must choose between two companies that have a record of violating network neutrality."

https://muninetworks.org/content/177-million-americans-harmed-net-neut rality

There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an RLEC area. Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what WISPs have been doing for 20 years. So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates revenue while you build your own plant. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Naslund" <SNaslund@medline.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:39:43 AM Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network Not if you are in an RLEC controlled territory you can't. They are protected monopolies by definition. You could do fixed wireless but not real cost effective to deploy in low density rural environments. Especially when there is a lack of cellular infrastructure to piggyback the infrastructure on. Anyone that has been a CLEC knows that the ILEC have squeezed the CLECs out of the wireline space pretty effectively. It is nearly impossible to compete with the already amortized ILEC wireline networks and you can't do your own cable infrastructure without a city franchise in most areas. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:28 AM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

Anyone can roll their own wireline at the maximum regulatory effort of becoming a CLEC and construction permits. Some jurisdictions will let you in without this, but if you have the former, they must allow you the same access as the >ILEC.

Otherwise, they can do fixed wireless.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP

The RLEC infrastructure doesn't include the ROW. That belongs to the municipality. You are largely correct that you don't have access to RLEC infrastructure. IANAL, so I don't know the precise limitations. Many have been made to port their numbers, but some are still protected. You won't see me defending USF-funded golden toilets. That said, RLECs are a fairly small amount of the problem and you can always do fixed wireless to overcome economics in their areas. The biggest thing stopping a CLEC from building in the ROW is economics? That's generally the biggest inhibitor to any infrastructure, but it's being overcome all of the time. I know a lot of guys have the cost per home for FTTH well under $1k/home. Depending on services sold, that's a reasonable 1 - 3 year ROI. You don't have to be cheaper, you just have to be better. One of my clients is still going doing CLEC DSL for about 13 years. They don't mess with their customer's traffic. They have good customer support. We all know you can't expect them to have a superior service and compete on price. If you want something not shit, buy it. Don't force someone to polish a turd. There are thousands of WISPs in the US. I know because I've been one for about 13 years, I go to the trade shows, and I have the largest WISP-focused podcast. I'll go tell them that they can't do what they're doing. Those urban guys are pretty new to the scene and represent probably less than 5% of the WISP industry. Some of the non-urban ones are delivering 100M+ services. Some of them are in the middle of nowhere, building their own infrastructure to deliver the only non-satellite service available. The biggest WISPs I know (100k+ customers) are all outside of urban areas. There are a ton that are 10k+. Most are probably 500 - 5k. Obviously nothing compared to the incumbents, but I'm not sure being like the incumbents is what anyone wants. I think the biggest thing this thread reveals is that just because someone operates a network doesn't mean they know how all types of networks operate (or are available). ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Naslund" <SNaslund@medline.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 11:19:54 AM Subject: RE: Free access to measurement network That must be recent change then because last time I looked RLECs are pretty well protected from CLEC competition. That was the original telecom act difference between CLECs and RLECs. Their argument was that it was so hard to be economically viable in low density areas that they deserved to have exclusive access to their infrastructure. However the biggest thing stopping a CLEC from building in a ROW is economics. The RLEC wouldn't even be there without all of the government subsidies they got to build in the first place. I think the market has already spoken pretty resoundingly about building out infrastructure as a CLEC. You would have to step over all of the corpses on your way to doing so. In fact, I can’t off the top of my head think of a single CLEC that has widespread coverage over their own infrastructure. They almost universally use the ILEC infrastructure for last mile. Even the giants like Level 3 are pretty much unavailable unless you are in the heart of the NFL sized city. As far as rural wireless, we have found very few options in any of the markets we have looked into. The same density issues that prevent high quality cellular build outs also applies to WISPs. In the rural area the WISP still needs backhaul and antenna infrastructure. The lack of national scale WISPs tells me that model is not going to be viable at scale. Too much infrastructure for too few customers is the common killer of CLECs and WISPs. The biggest WISPs I know of are mostly urban as alternatives to the ILEC infrastructure not in rural areas and are used mostly as backup providers. Most facilities based DSL providers (i.e. equipment collocated with the ILECs) died quite some time ago. There were lots of them in the 1999 - 2005 timeframe and they are all dead now. You just can't compete with the ILEC cost model. I think the only model that would possibly bring out any viable competition in the last mile would be municipality owned infrastructure. The problem with that model is the municipalities love to offer exclusive contracts instead of an open infrastructure because they get the big payday. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 10:43 AM Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Free access to measurement network

There's nothing stopping you from using CLEC status to build in the ROW of an RLEC area.

Fixed wireless is the most cost effective way to deploy in rural environments, other than at some point ultra rural, satellite takes over. That's kinda what WISPs have been doing for 20 years.

So don't own cable. Build fiber. There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

If you're going CLEC and using the ILEC's copper, go bigger. Most of the big ILECs are still rolling with sub 10 megabit speeds. I know some CLECs doing ADSL2+, VDSL, etc. Not as wide-reaching, no, but it's something and generates ?>revenue while you build your own plant.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP