Free access to measurement network

Edwin Pers EPers at
Mon Dec 18 16:03:52 CST 2017

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 at] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 10:23 AM
Cc: nanog at
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 at>
To: nanog at
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 at 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."
> rality

More information about the NANOG mailing list