Feel free to shoot me down if you think I am posting against the rules of
this mailing list but I think it may be helpful for some guys here.
We have over 1000 routers deployed across US/Canada in over 700 locations
and 130+ networks. Those routers can run network tests such as
traceroutes,pings,http tests and can be automated using API.
I am happy to give out access to anyone on the list - free of charge (inc.
for commercial purposes). We are just interested in seeing what can be
built on top of it and have capacity now.
Please send me an email off-list if you are interested or want more
information
this sounds like ripe-atlas... only less nodes?
Seems interesting, you should publish an API ... oh you do: http://probeapi.speedchecker.xyz/
you might consider donating your data to the measurement-lab.org people ...
eh?
I wonder if/how the QOE tests could inform things like the FTC's efforts at
measuring across ATT/partner boundaries during their period
post-directtv-merger?
Thanks for your feedback. Yes, its similar to RIPE Atlas. Our goal is to
have more nodes over time. We only just started and have over 2000 nodes
worldwide, since DD-WRT users contributing routers we don't need to
pay/ship hardware and should have better coverage over time. Of course the
routers are not as powerful as RIPE probes and not extensible so there are
limitations to what we can do.
Regarding contributing data, the data is private to whoever has been
running the measurements so it would be tricky unless we get consent from
everyone.
Regarding ATT QOE, happy to chat more off-list if you have ideas how we
could help
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.
Since these are mostly end-user routers they are on regular ISPs (like
Comcast, Verizon etc). I believe this could be quite suitable for
monitoring net neutrality. Feel free to ping me off-list if you would like
to explore it more.
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."
That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out.
The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That data is available directly on their site or via some sites like broadbandnow.com
There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff.
My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs), even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's advertisements.
My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by
taking service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have
closed up shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough
getting customers if the incumbents have a service that mostly works
(over say 5 to 10 megs), even if the independent offers service
comparable to the incumbent's advertisements.
In my neck of the woods, most independents only sold layer 3 services.
and depended upon others for layer 2 services. The independents had
a booming business with those conditions and consumers had an array of
choices for ISPs.
Then, the layer 2 operators started offering combined layer 2/3 services
at a price point below the layer 2 only price needed to get to the
independents. Unsurprisingly, the consumers flocked to the cheaper
services.
I've always felt if a company used a public right of way to reach a
consumer, they should be prohibited from being a layer 3 provider.
Or, at a minimum, they need to sell layer 2 services to themselves at
the same price they charge others. I've known lots of people that would
be happy to compete with the big boys under those circumstances.
That project was paid for by ARRA funds and ran out.
The FCC picked up the ball by expanding the scope of its 477 program. That
data is available directly on their site or via some sites like
broadbandnow.com
I didn't know about that - thanks. But it just confirms what I
thought; my choices are comcast & verizon. There is another
possibility, but $350/mo for 10Mb/s with a 24 month contract is too
steep.
There are also many service providers available that aren't filing because
either A) they don't know about it or B) government stuff.
My point was that consumers voted out thousands of independents by taking
service from incumbents instead of independents. Thousands have closed up
shop. Where independents are available, it's still tough getting customers
if the incumbents have a service that mostly works (over say 5 to 10 megs),
even if the independent offers service comparable to the incumbent's
advertisements.
As a consumer, how much extra are you willing to pay for good service?
Because I'm guessing that's about all a small independent can offer
that's better than the local (mono|duo)poly. So while I think I get
your point, I see it more as consumers voting with their wallets
rather than voting out independents.
Try looking to see what independents might be around the area you're looking at. See if any of them are willing to expand. Many of us are chomping at the bit to expand (with competitive products), but are having a hard time nailing people down.
Independents are more likely to have good customer service, not want to violate net neutrality principals, etc. Basically, are more likely to be the company you actually want.
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