Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
> "I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup
> solution.
> I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
> pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :("
>
> Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could
> lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?

no, what I'm saying is I don't think price sensitivity is the thing
that moves folk from backup or not. (but again, this is all a red
herring anyway)

> "I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong."
>
> I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work
> around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers
> just to handle session state.  15% is probably underestimating the costs,
> but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise.

great, no citation...

rsync -f /etc/rsyncd.conf

problem solved. (well, wrap a shell script to re-create that config as
you add/remove users)

> "this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
> things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
> would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
> 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful."
>
> Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort
> that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it
> easy.
>
> "I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
> (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
> the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).'
>
> Wait, are you really running Windows ME????

I also don't actually play Angband.

> "folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if
> they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks
> that don't already have v6 deployed.
>
> You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6."
>
> You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is
> expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies.  Both are
> hard and expensive, but to completely different groups.  This is why
> Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT
> services want the carriers to deploy IPv6.  It's also why the carriers have
> been less than enthusiastic.  They get the bulk of the cost while others get
> the bulk of the benefits.

actually I think folk want ipv6 because it'll be more stable and
reliable and permit the same fast growth of the network and services.
Also, don't confuse CGN with home-nat.

> "Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
> that's a fine red herring you've also brought up."
>
> No, it's not.  SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the
> reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT.
> Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed

they also can't connect with their peers in a sane fashion. I suppose
if they didn't want any of their customers to talk outside the
singular service they could avoid sbcs as well... I think there are
other things than SBC devices which are capable of making sip work too
in the face of NAT.

-chris