Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Fri Feb 27 22:19:00 UTC 2015

"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?

"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.

"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????

"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.

"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

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at zcorum.com> wrote:
> > "hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
> > I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
> > server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
> >
> > Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price
> will
> > go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.
>
> 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 :(
>
> > Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
> > costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT
> transversal
> > they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the
>
> I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.
>
> > same service for less.  Either would result in more people using that
> kind
> > of service.
> >
>
> 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.
>
> > Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without
> > port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.
>
> 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).
>
> also I have ipv6, so i  have open access directly to my internal
> network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC
> and ...)
>
> > "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> > 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
> >
> > That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard
> products)
> >
>
> you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I
> said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)
>
> > "my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
> > play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
> > people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
> > transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA
> > is a wasted dns few bytes.
> >
> > Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
> > problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
> > whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."
> >
> > It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're
> > using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to
> get
> > around it to a certain extent.  Session border controllers cost tens of
> > thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.
>
> 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.
>
> Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
> that's a fine red herring you've also brought up.
>
> -chris
>