[110897] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: inauguration streams review
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Stewart)
Wed Jan 21 13:54:26 2009
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:54:17 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1b5c1c150901211052v1b51d88fg4974887ef4a91a67@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Paul Stewart" <pstewart@nexicomgroup.net>
To: "Mike Lyon" <mike.lyon@gmail.com>,
"Jack Carrozzo" <jack@crepinc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Just curious on that note with COW .. did you have much security related
problems setting up stuff nearby?
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Lyon [mailto:mike.lyon@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Jack Carrozzo
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: inauguration streams review
How many simultaneous connections can each COW handle? What kind of
backhaul
connections do they have?
-Mike
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jack Carrozzo <jack@crepinc.com>
wrote:
> I can't comment on revenue-generation, though access as a whole was
quite
> high.
>
> We hardly had any voice IAs (Ineffective Attempts, or 'Busy'
> messages). Since data can be queued, the only thing that would cause
> data IAs are bad RF conditions - we had a TON of 'cell on wheels' in
> the area for the event so we had enough carrier space to cover it.
>
> In-network data response times were hardly affected, with switch loads
> well below 50%. In-network SMS were still getting to their
> destinations in under 5 seconds for the most part.... I don't have any
> numbers on MMS or mobile IP data at the moment, though I would have
> heard if something horrible had happened.
>
> I'm told that the out-of-network SMS queue was piling pretty high at
> one point, to delivery times up to an hour, though they all still got
> there. We can't control other network's switches obviously.
>
> This isn't trying to sound like an advertisement - *I'm* not affected
> either way if people sign up with us as I'm not in sales, however from
> my point of view it looks like we had the most solid network... Our
> guys were planning and setting things up since June.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Jack Carrozzo
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Peter Beckman <beckman@angryox.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Jack Carrozzo wrote:
> >
> >> Cell networks held up reasonably well for voice, though SMS and MMS
> >> delivery times approached an hour during the event. Switch load in
> >> almost the entire US was higher than midnight on New Years (which
is
> >> generally the highest load of the year).
> >>
> >> Our network has been preparing since June, and I assume likewise
for
> >> others.
> >
> > Unfortunately for me Sprint did not seem to prepare or have enough
> > capacity for Voice, SMS or Data access. No live Twitter blogging!
> >
> > While I was able to get a few (maybe 5 between 10am and 2pm) text
> messages
> > out while standing near the Washington Monument, calls and data
were an
> > impossibility, and SMS only seemed to have capacity available
during
> lulls
> > in the Inaugural activity.
> >
> > It was disappointing as a customer -- I'm sure that, had the
capacity
> been
> > there, the revenue from that single event would have made a
significant
> > impact on any of the carrier's revenue, at least for the month.
> >
> >> -Jack Carrozzo
> >> (Engineer at $large cell company whose policy doesn't allow me to
> specify)
> >
> > (Google spills the beans!) I'm curious if you can find out -- did
the
> > record traffic positively affect revenue for that period compared
to
> last
> > year at the same time, or even last week on the same day?
> >
> > And from a more technical standpoint, did your $large cell company
put
> up
> > temporary towers? I'm curious as to how your company added
capacity to
> > handle the event, as well as how many "Network Busy" messages
customers
> > got, if any. I know I got more of those messages than I did
successful
> > communications.
> >
> > Beckman
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > Peter Beckman
Internet
> Guy
> > beckman@angryox.com
> http://www.angryox.com/
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to=
which it is addressed and contains confidential and/or privileged material=
. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and =
then destroy this transmission, including all attachments, without copying,=
distributing or disclosing same. Thank you."
