33 Years of the Digest ... founded August 21, 1981Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All Rights Reserved.The Telecom Digest for Aug 21, 2014
| ||||||||||||||
See the bottom of this issue for subscription and archive details.
| Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:34:47 -0400 (EDT) From: rvh40@insightbb.com To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: VZ reward for copper thefts Message-ID: <1891282610.8847315.1408491287722.JavaMail.root@insightbb.com> From: Doug McIntyre <merlyn@dork.geeks.org> rvh40@remove-this.insightbb.com writes: >> There is a small number of companies in any location which accept >> metal for recycling. >> If Joe Schmoe shows up at the depot with a truckbed full of copper >> cable, they know he didn't come across it legitimately. >How's that? >There are many legit recyclers of large trucks full of copper cabling. >Ie. datacomm techs routinely pull old dead comm cable from the >ceilings when they retrofit a space. That ancient 25-pair and cat3 >just goes onto the truck for recycling. >I also know my electrician collects all his junk wire for recycling, >and eventually saves up trash barrels full of it to go on a recycling >run. But does he take cables like VZ is complaining about being stolen? Yes, small wires are legitimately recycled all the time, and even a small amount of large wires, perhaps -- but if VZ really wanted to know who was stealing its cables, they could find out, a lot cheaper than paying that reward. What legitimate explanation is there for Joe Schmoe to show up with a quarter mile of thick copper shielded cable? |
| Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 13:15:30 -0700 From: John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: This has got to stop Message-ID: <lt0b90$efd$1@blue-new.rahul.net> > Fred Goldstein wrote: >> Nothing going on there is even within the FCC's actual jurisdiction, let >> alone in violation of any rule. After all, this is about content >> distribution, not telecom. Netflix doesn't own wire and doesn't even >> want to rent any. It's just servers in data centers, a big computing and >> content-leasing company. On 2014-08-18 18:24, Garrett Wollman wrote: > Um, no. Netflix is a content-distribution network. (To the extent > that there are "servers in data centers", Netflix leases them by the > hour from Amazon.) In some locations they use third-party CDNs, but > their big push over the past few years has been to transition this > service to their own platform (thereby cutting out middlemen like > Akamai). >> There is always the possibility of an antitrust issue, but what is VZ >> doing that competes with Netflix? > Verizon is a big cable-TV MSO, in case you haven't noticed. Their > video (and VOD) business competes directly with Netflix. Then the problem is a conflict of interest, and VZ should be forced to sell off either its content-resale business, or its telecom business. Indeed, a general rule that no firm may be in both businesses is probably the best way to handle the antitrust issue across the board. Let the data carriers divide themselves into common and private carriers as the passenger- and freight-transportation industries have done. |
| Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 22:26:20 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.calm> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: This has got to stop Message-ID: <lt10vu$egr$1@dont-email.me> On 8/18/2014 9:24 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > In article <lstp5v$ek2$1@dont-email.me>, > Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.com> wrote: >> Nothing going on there is even within the FCC's actual jurisdiction, let >> alone in violation of any rule. After all, this is about content >> distribution, not telecom. Netflix doesn't own wire and doesn't even >> want to rent any. It's just servers in data centers, a big computing and >> content-leasing company. > > Um, no. Netflix is a content-distribution network. (To the extent > that there are "servers in data centers", Netflix leases them by the > hour from Amazon.) In some locations they use third-party CDNs, but > their big push over the past few years has been to transition this > service to their own platform (thereby cutting out middlemen like > Akamai). > What I said, servers in data centers, whether their own or leased. They don't own transmission facilities (telecommunications). >> There is always the possibility of an antitrust issue, but what is VZ >> doing that competes with Netflix? > > Verizon is a big cable-TV MSO, in case you haven't noticed. Their > video (and VOD) business competes directly with Netflix. > To the extent that they are protecting their MSO business using their telecom monopoly resources, then there could be an antitrust issue. Verizon doesn't own significant content the way some companies do, though. Not that Netflix does much either. >> The problem with Netflix is that they assume that the cost of Internet >> bandwidth is precisely zero. > > Wrong again. They assume that the cost of Internet bandwidth *within > a provider's network* is the responsibility of that provider, to be > recovered by the ISP directly from the ISP's customers. Which is based on the assumption that it's zero. Providers such as Verizon have costs, even for distribution, so an application that makes a sea change in those costs should pony up, because otherwise those of Verizon's customers who don't want to be IP couch potatoes will have to pay the added costs forced on them by a service they don't use. That strikes me as a valid business decision to leave to Verizon. > They are of course willing to interconnect with providers, at > locations of the providers' choosing, when that would be mutually > beneficial. They are even willing to colocate their content servers > on a provider's network - that is, after all, what a CDN's business > is - when doing so would provide better service to their customers. This only applies to large providers. I know of many smaller ISPs who couldn't get Netflix into their own networks on a dare or via a bribe. And those are the ones with the highest upstream costs. >> TCP uses capacity elastically: Dropped packets cause it to slow down, >> creating an endless sawtooth pattern of end-to-end rates. > > Depends on the congestion-control algorithm you use, but accurate to a > first approximation. > >> So ISPs naturally want to be compensated for the load. And Netflix >> doesn't want to pay. Netflix thinks its content is so groovy that ISPs >> should be willing to upgrade their networks to accommodate its demands. > > No, Netflix understands that its service is one of the principal > drivers for the ISPs' customers to upgrade their service to faster, > more expensive tiers, and therefore thinks it reasonable to expect the > ISPs to invest some of this additional revenue into upgrading their > backhaul networks. Unfortunately, the retail wireline ISP market grew up here charging for burst rate, not total carried load. Netflix doesn't need 100 Mbps; it works fine on a 10 Mbps circuit. So the usual provider tiering doesn't really come into play here except at the bottom of the ladder (ADSL). Even the bottom cable modem tier is plenty fast for Netflix in HD. > The ISPs, on the other hand, have seen the upsell fees as > essentially free profit, which they can easily gull from customers > who don't realize that the speed of their access link has no > connection with the speed of the transit network, and who don't read > the contracts that say the provider is under no obligation to > engineer its transit network in a way that allows it to deliver that > bandwidth, not even statistically. > Netflix is doing the public a service by standing up on this > principle. They don't have to do so, and arguably it would benefit > them considerably in the long term to cave -- because that would > make "the next Netflix" a near-impossibility without a huge up-front > investment in bribes to access providers, permanently locking out > all but the most serious competition. Which is of course exactly > what the cable duopoly would like: they realize they can't turn back > the clock and crush Netflix in infancy, but they can certainly do so > for anyone else who might want to compete with them. That assumes that the beneficial innovations are the ones that need gobs of bits, like Netflix, rather than having fewer, more valuable, bits. Instead, real innovation, of the type that needs low latency or low loss, may be crowded out in a sea of cat videos. > Unlike most people, where I live, I have the choice of three cable > MSOs: Comcast, Verizon, and RCN. If I actually cared about Netflix > (I'm not a subscriber) I would certainly consider the quality of > service offered by each provider for Netflix streaming in my decision > as to whose Internet service to buy. Most people don't have that > option, which is presumably why Netflix did a deal with Comcast but is > holding out for better terms from Verizon -- most of Comcast's > customers are in monopoly territory, whereas all of Verizon's FiOS > customers have the choice of another cableco (often Comcast). We are, I presume, neighbors; I have the same three choices. I do sometimes watch Netflix, though they don't have much quality streaming other than a couple of TV shows (like Orange is the New Black). Their online movie choice is pathetic, no doubt due to licensing problems. So I'm likely to dump Comcast for RCN not because of Netflix (I suspect Comcast now has better peering with them) but because Comcast's customer service quality has deteriorated over the past few years from "fair to middlin', usually OK" to "remember Chrysler?". I may post an article about that one of these days, but what I've written on it so far is, well, bigger than most Digest posts. |
| Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 12:15:44 -0400 From: Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC issues $100,000 NAL Message-ID: <barmar-3B1FE7.12154420082014@news.eternal-september.org> In article <53F34D9B.8010803@Rochester.RR.com>, Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> wrote: > On 8/18/2014 7:05 PM, bill@horneQRM.net (Bill Horne) wrote: > > I just got an email that alerted me to this news: the Federal > > Communications Commission has issued an Notice of Apparent Liability > > for forfeiture (NAL) to an Oklahoma LEC, charging negligence in > > routing 911 traffic and proposiing a $100,000 fine. > > > This is from the FCC website: > <snip> > > > > http://www.fcc.gov/document/100k-nal-oklahoma-carrier-sending-911-calls-auto > > > > recording > > And, who are they actually fining? > > Don't the ratepayers eventually pay this? You might as well ask the same question any time the government fines a business. But if it's a LEC, aren't they regulated by the local PUC? They may not allow them to increase rates. And how much would they have to increase to recover $100K, anyway? Add a penny to each customer's bill, and they've made it back in a single billing cycle. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** |
| Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 16:01:48 -0400 From: Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC issues $100,000 NAL Message-ID: <53F4FEAC.3060909@Rochester.RR.com> On 8/20/2014 12:15 PM, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <53F34D9B.8010803@Rochester.RR.com>, > Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> wrote: > >> On 8/18/2014 7:05 PM, bill@horneQRM.net (Bill Horne) wrote: >>> I just got an email that alerted me to this news: the Federal >>> Communications Commission has issued an Notice of Apparent Liability >>> for forfeiture (NAL) to an Oklahoma LEC, charging negligence in >>> routing 911 traffic and proposiing a $100,000 fine. >> >>> This is from the FCC website: >> <snip> >>> >>> http://www.fcc.gov/document/100k-nal-oklahoma-carrier-sending-911-calls-auto >>> >>> recording >> >> And, who are they actually fining? >> >> Don't the ratepayers eventually pay this? > > You might as well ask the same question any time the government fines > a business. That is 100% true. It is always the consumer -- the bottom guy on the totem pole -- that eventually pays for everything. > > But if it's a LEC, aren't they regulated by the local PUC? They may not > allow them to increase rates. And how much would they have to increase > to recover $100K, anyway? Add a penny to each customer's bill, and > they've made it back in a single billing cycle. In my state I think the PUC used to more or less guarantee that the stockholders would receive a certain return on their investment. But now, with regulated companies getting into unregulated activities, the whole thing gets murky. Costs and profits get shifted back and forth between the regulated and non-regulated portions of the operation. Still, it's the small guy that gets it in the end. |
| Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 21:43:40 -0400 From: Fred Goldstein <fg_es@ionaryQRM.calm> To: telecomdigestsubmissions.remove-this@and-this-too.telecom-digest.org. Subject: Re: FCC issues $100,000 NAL Message-ID: <lt3irs$k00$1@dont-email.me> On 8/20/2014 12:15 PM, Barry Margolin wrote: > In article <53F34D9B.8010803@Rochester.RR.com>, > Bob K <SPAMpot@Rochester.RR.com> wrote: > >> On 8/18/2014 7:05 PM, bill@horneQRM.net (Bill Horne) wrote: >>> I just got an email that alerted me to this news: the Federal >>> Communications Commission has issued an Notice of Apparent Liability >>> for forfeiture (NAL) to an Oklahoma LEC, charging negligence in >>> routing 911 traffic and proposiing a $100,000 fine. >> >>> This is from the FCC website: >> <snip> >>> >>> http://www.fcc.gov/document/100k-nal-oklahoma-carrier-sending-911-calls-auto >>> >>> recording >> >> And, who are they actually fining? >> >> Don't the ratepayers eventually pay this? > > You might as well ask the same question any time the government fines > a business. > > But if it's a LEC, aren't they regulated by the local PUC? They may not > allow them to increase rates. And how much would they have to increase > to recover $100K, anyway? Add a penny to each customer's bill, and > they've made it back in a single billing cycle. > Nowadays, ILECs fall into two categories. Price Cap ILECs are allowed to make any profit level, but some (not all) their prices may be subject to certain limits. That category includes all of the Bells and other big carriers. They are not allowed to collect much per line from the Universal Service Fund; their high-cost areas are supposed to be cross-subsidized by their low-cost areas. Rate of Return ILECs are still on a more traditional kind of regulation. These are almost all small rural carriers. But they don't ask state PUCs for rate increases as in the old days. They get their money from the federal Universal Service Fund. That takes their total allowable costs, subtracts their own revenues (often much less than half), and USF (paid from that ~16% tax on many services) makes up the rest. If a carrier is fined, USF presumably does not consider it an allowable expense, so it comes out of their actual bottom line. The carrier in Oklahoma, Hinton Tel, only has around 3000 lines. So it wouldn't be totally trivial on a per-line basis. |
TELECOM Digest is an electronic journal devoted mostly to telecom- munications topics. It is circulated anywhere there is email, in addition to Usenet, where it appears as the moderated newsgroup 'comp.dcom.telecom'.
TELECOM Digest is a not-for-profit educational service offered to the Internet by Bill Horne.
The Telecom Digest is moderated by Bill Horne.
| Contact information: |
Bill Horne Telecom Digest 43 Deerfield Road Sharon MA 02067-2301 339-364-8487 bill at horne dot net |
| Subscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=subscribe telecom |
| Unsubscribe: | telecom-request@telecom-digest.org?body=unsubscribe telecom |
This Digest is the oldest continuing e-journal about telecomm- unications on the Internet, having been founded in August, 1981 and published continuously since then. Our archives are available for your review/research. We believe we are the oldest e-zine/mailing list on the internet in any category! URL information: http://telecom-digest.org Copyright © 2014 E. William Horne. All rights reserved.
Finally, the Digest is funded by gifts from generous readers such as yourself. Thank you!
All opinions expressed herein are deemed to be those of the author. Any organizations listed are for identification purposes only and messages should not be considered any official expression by the organization.