Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)
michael at wi-fiber.io
Wed Jun 20 01:10:59 UTC 2018
I've always said that the fiber middle mile price themselves out of more
money. I want a fiber connection that will service a subdivision(20-50
households) with speeds up to 1gbps, oh that's $2k/mo. The problem is that
we want a fiber connection for 10 or 20 subdivisions, oh, that's 2k per,
but you get 10% discount because of the amount.. Alternatively, we could
get a single 10g connection from an IX/first mile for $2500, and use 10-20
$3k radios to get a gig into every sub division, We've tried to get fiber
providers to allow us to purchase bandwidth based upon 3 criteria: 1) the
cost for them to buildout, they are a business and need to get their money
back. 2) total burstable capacity, 10g circuits cost more than 1g, but 200m
circuits shouldn't cost less than 1g. 3) by the number of subscribers on
each link. We have offered to 1) pay for their fiber install costs, 2) pay
a base tariff and 3) pay up 25% of base revenue per user. In this case,
fiber company gets paid to put the fiber in, and ~$500/mo for each
connection they're giving to us, in this scenario they will make $10k/mo
profit, plus expand their network. In the other scenario they make only
$2500/mo and come in uncompetetively for businesses in our market(because
they have a new buildout to bake into their price)
Just doesn't make sense to us to pay individually for fiber connections
when we know it's packet switched anyway, and the load on their network is
On 19 June 2018 at 18:25, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> I encourage you to look at operating a network outside of a datacenter or
> corporate campus.
> The wireless last hop is *NOT* the problem. A modern deployment in a small
> village could put dozens of megabit/s to every house for $10k. The transit
> or transport connections *ARE* the fiscal problem.
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Herbert" <george.herbert at gmail.com>
> To: "Lee Howard" <lee.howard at retevia.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:29:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Impacts of Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)
> I’m confused.
> People are using last hop (wireless) arguments against HTTPS Everywhere;
> that’s the part that requires full bandwidth either way (as your non-HTTPS
> cache is upstream somewhere). The fiber links that are physically fixed and
> can handle in many cases better lasers, are the ongoing upgradable part.
> If you’re complaining your fiber backhaul is too big a deal, you’re
> playing the wrong game to start with.
> George William Herbert
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On Jun 19, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Lee Howard <lee.howard at retevia.net> wrote:
> >> On 06/17/2018 02:53 PM, Brad wrote:
> >> While I agree there are unintended consequences every time advancements
> are made in relation to the security and stability of the Internet- I
> disagree we should be rejecting their implementations. Instead, we should
> innovate further.
> > I look forward to your innovations.
> >> Just because end to end encryption causes bandwidth issues for a very
> small number users - then perhaps they could benefit the most by these
> changes with additional capacity.
> > I encourage you to invest billions of dollars in rural broadband
> capacity worldwide. The rest of us will thank you for your sacrifice.
> > Lee
> >> -Brad
> >> -------- Original message --------From: Michael Hallgren <mh at xalto.net>
> Date: 6/17/18 11:14 (GMT-07:00) To: nanog at jack.fr.eu.org Cc: Matthew
> Petach <matt at petach.org>, nanog at nanog.org Subject: Re: Impacts of
> Encryption Everywhere (any solution?)
> >> Le 2018-06-17 12:40, nanog at jack.fr.eu.org a écrit :
> >>> Well, yes, there is, you simply have to break the end to end
> >> Yes, (or) deny service by Policy (remains to evaluate who's happy with
> >> that).
> >> Cheers,
> >> mh
> >>>> On 06/17/2018 03:09 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >>>> Except that if websites are set to HTTPS only, there's no option for
> >>>> disabling encryption on the client side.
> >>>> Matt
> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018, 14:47 <nanog at jack.fr.eu.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 06/16/2018 10:13 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >>>>>> Sadly, it's just falling on deaf ears. Silicon Valley will continue
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>> think they know better than everyone else and people outside of that
> >>>>> bubble
> >>>>> will continue to be disadvantaged.
> >>>>> What, again ?
> >>>>> Encryption is what is best for the most people.
> >>>>> The few that will not use it can disable it.
> >>>>> No issue then.
More information about the NANOG