In follow-up, it's a difference in leverage. With slate, a builder could easily switch suppliers and it was just a matter of whether or not a particular supplier could deliver the sizes the builder wanted. The builder had the leverage, and it was in any given supplier's best interest to have the standard sizes on hand so he didn't risk losing a sale because he didn't have them and someone else did. With bandwidth, on the consumer end there isn't much opportunity to switch suppliers and the cost of doing so's high. The consumer doesn't have any leverage, if the edge ISP can't or won't deliver a standard product the consumer can't believably threaten to switch suppliers to one that will. It's not in the ISP's best interest to standardize, and in fact it's in their best interests not to standardize and not lower the bar to moving even a little bit. On the upstream side where the edge ISPs connect to larger backbone networks it's a bit different, but I don't think the issues of variability and non-standard measurements exist on those interfaces and where they do the edge ISP's in the same position: they're the one and only path to those consumers and if you want to reach their customers it's their way or the highway.
Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 11:48 AM PST by Todd Knarr
I want to begin by saying I agree with Todd Knarr's point about the lack of choice making measurements an academic issue for many of us.
As for the the attributes that have to be measured and reported:
- For several ranges of packet sizes, and for each direction of packet flow:
= Variation in delay (jitter)
= Loss rate
= Mis/Re-ordering rate
= Duplication rate
= Queue sizes (which would raise bufferbloat issues)
= ICMP rate limits/suppression
- Whether IPv6 is handled, and if so, what options (such as proper prefix delegation - I'm looking at you Comcast)
- Presence of traffic shaping
- Presence of filtering
- Presence of hidden proxies (such as DNS interceptors or HTTP framing - again looking at you Comcast)
- Presence of NAT
Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 11:33 AM PST by Karl Auerbach
A big part of the problem in the US is that substitution of suppliers isn't possible. The limitation is the last mile to consumers where the physical limitations of running wires and obtaining RF spectrum are aggravated by contracts prohibiting allowing other suppliers from needed access or indeed prohibiting other suppliers from even entering the market at all.
Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2017 11:42 AM PST by Todd Knarr
I scanned the post for a telltale '@' that gives an email address.
Is there someone at ICANN we can complain to about this?
Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 12:18 PM PST by Steve Sybesma
I hope I understand you correctly.
Internet is ONE settlement, not two or four or infinite.
Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 2:18 PM PST by Torbjörn Eklöv
Do you think that a company not smart enough to have data backups would have the necessary analytical skills to do a cost-benefit analysis of pay/no pay? Should they immediately get the FBI involved?
Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 2:39 AM PST by Alex Tajirian
This comment and multiple comments like it exemplify ICANN's failure to establish trust with the consumer. And because it's not the warm and fuzzy supportive feedback the expect (and often demand) it is routinely ignored which increases negative sentiment and confirms the consumer's belief that ICANN operates for self-interest. Will be part of teleconference I have with ICANN staff later today. Thanks.
Link | Posted on Jan 09, 2017 6:52 AM PST by Garth Bruen
The Internet Governance Outlook for 2017 provides great insight for the year ahead. It equally demonstrates that we will predominantly be in the territory of the governance on the Internet.
This aspect of Internet governance in past years gradually overtook the governance of the Internet debate where a general agreement on a multistakeholder governance model has been developed over the past 10 years. That model is hardly contested (with minor exceptions) and the ICANN with its supporting organizations and advisory committees, including the GAC is a living testimony to this affirmation.
As per governance on the Internet, we are still far from understanding how it should be addressed in an optimal way. Hence, many are looking to governments for a solution. Moreover, governance on the Internet (in other words: governance of actual use of the Internet) is far more complex than governance of the Internet and includes areas which historically have been the exclusive competence of governments - national security being one of them.
We will have exciting year(s) ahead of us and hopefully collective wisdom on how to keep use of the Internet open and free will prevail over attempts to put a “heavy hand” on the use of the Internet that will stifle innovation and development.
Janis Karklins, Ambassador of Latvia
Link | Posted on Jan 09, 2017 5:12 AM PST by Janis Karklins
ICANN operates like the mafia, BECAUSE IT IS THE MAFIA. When are you going to wake up?
Link | Posted on Jan 09, 2017 3:27 AM PST by Louise
Indeed (although it was a time-consuming, stressful and expensive experience). Our advice was that the trademark issue would be more valid as the main point for the appeal than arguing misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract or potential fraud by an ICANN approved registrar, and thankfully we got the domain back (although these will obviously be the basis of our legal action to recover our costs from the registrar and our complaint to ICANN against them).
We did try to contact the other party on several occasions but as you so eloquently point out, they are totally hidden by a privacy wall. We had no reply and they did not even submit a response against the appeal. They did not even try to sell us back the domain.
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 11:48 AM PST by Mark Stephens
I gathered as much, Mark,from the decision, and while certainly disrupting (even an assault on the fingernails) the award returned your domain name; Yes? Gerald
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 10:36 AM PST by Gerald M. Levine
Just to quantify one of your points, IDRsolutions (of which I am the CEO) did actually pay a well-known and supposedly reputable registrar to renew the jpedal.org domain and contacted their technical support to confirm this had been done (which they did in writing). However, they actually failed to pass on the money which they had taken, causing the domain to lapse. Which raises a whole lot of additional interesting legal questions we are now working through with our legal advisors....
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 10:02 AM PST by Mark Stephens
Also, the DNIB reports since December 2014 have not been using up-to-date figures for .tk.
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 7:43 AM PST by Kevin Murphy
Don't tease Phil ;), what's happening next week.
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 6:04 AM PST by Stéphane Van Gelder
Stephane, Great post. Definitely crunch time 2017 for the whole industry .Our financial analytics ( end of 2016)& market indicators show major casualties, lots of acquisitions , cheap low hanging fruit to buy. It's not about regs nos anymore, but top line Revenues and CASHFLOW, but also about markets within markets, different business models, Dot brand strategy. Will be very interesting to see who makes the big play. More next week .......
Link | Posted on Jan 06, 2017 4:45 AM PST by Phil Buckingham