- <title>MPEG LA on "Internet Broadcast AVC Video" licensing and non-private use</title>
- <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</link>
- <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</guid>
- <pubDate>Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
- <description><p>After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
-<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html">why
-they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with
-the MPEG LA</a>, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA
-if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it
-does not.</p>
-
-<p>I started by asking for more information about the various
-licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
-did not need a license for streaming H.264 video:
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>According to
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf">a
-MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02</a>, there is no charge when
-using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of "Internet Broadcast AVC
-Video". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" is, and wondered if you could help me. What
-exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?</p>
-
-<p>The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
-PDF named
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf">AVC
-Patent Portfolio License Briefing</a>, which states this about the
-fees:</p>
-
-<ul>
- <li>Where End User pays for AVC Video
- <ul>
- <li>Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer
- subscribers/yr = no royalty; &gt; 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
- $25,000; &gt;250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; &gt;500,000 to
- 1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; &gt;1M subscribers/yr = $100,000</li>
-
- <li>Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; &gt;12 minutes in
- length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title</li>
- </ul></li>
-
- <li>Where remuneration is from other sources
- <ul>
- <li>Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or
- (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for &gt; 100,000 HH rising to
- maximum $10,000 for &gt;1,000,000 HH</li>
-
- <li>Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
- – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License</li>
- </ul></li>
-</ul>
-
-<p>Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
-categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video" is the category for things that do not fall into
-one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source
-explaining what is ment by "title-by-title" and "Free Television" in
-the license terms for AVC/H.264?</p>
-
-<p>Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a
-"video on demand" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no
-subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to
-get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the "Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent
-Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get
-access to personalized services?</p>
-
-<p>Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
-Internet.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
-with the MPEG LA:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-<p>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
-appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.</p>
-
-<p>As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
-which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
-the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10). Specifically, coverage is
-provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264
-technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
-video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
-paying the applicable royalties.</p>
-
-<p>Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
-defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
-the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service
-which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such
-AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
-receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
-Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
-License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
-free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
-AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given
-access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
-no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.</p>
-
-<p>On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
-specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
-video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC
-Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
-content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers
-Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
-be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
-through an "over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission", then
-such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
-subject to the applicable royalties.</p>
-
-<p>For your reference, I have attached
-<a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpegla.pdf">a
-.pdf copy of the AVC License</a>. You will find the relevant
-sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through
-2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4.
-You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
-Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License. Please note that the
-electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
-be used for execution.</p>
-
-<p>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
-questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
-free to contact me directly.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
-that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
-me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
-But I still had a few questions:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-<p>I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get
-a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The
-reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
-clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses
-typically look similar to this:
-
-<p><blockquote>
- This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
- the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
- video in compliance with the AVC standard ("AVC video") and/or (b)
- decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a
- personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was
- obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No
- license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
- information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
-an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
-there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will
-differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is
-MPEG LAs view on this?</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
-non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
-clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License
-reads:</p>
-
-<p>THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
-THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
-RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC
-STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED
-BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
-A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
-OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
-OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM</p>
-
-<p>The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
-personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
-with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
-product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
-licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
-deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
-Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party's AVC
-Product as their own branded AVC Product).</p>
-
-<p>Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
-Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
-Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
-conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
-payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a
-Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
-own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
-above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
-Products by the licensed supplier.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
-countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
-Norway.</p>
-
-<p>I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further
-assistance, just let me know.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
-asked for more information:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly,
-you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent
-Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the
-list available from &lt;URL:
-<a href="http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx</a>
-&gt; incorrectly, as I believed the "NO" prefix in front of patents
-were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi
-Electric Corporation expired in 2012. Which patents are you referring
-to that are relevant for Norway?</p>
-
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
-in that list:</p>
-
-<p><blockquote>
-
-<p>Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio
-Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012. Therefore, where AVC
-Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no
-royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License.
-With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC
-Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before
-the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify
-that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the
-country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.</p>
-
-<p>Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in
-a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example,
-Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need
-coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are
-initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio
-Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to
-conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a
-country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell
-such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent
-Portfolio Patents.</p>
-</blockquote></p>
-
-<p>As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe
-Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution
-license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for
-anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a
-Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the
-content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where
-none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the
-copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because
-the patents are not valid in Norway?</p>
+ <title>E-tjenesten ber om innsyn i eposten til partiene på Stortinget</title>
+ <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/E_tjenesten_ber_om_innsyn_i_eposten_til_partiene_p__Stortinget.html</link>
+ <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/E_tjenesten_ber_om_innsyn_i_eposten_til_partiene_p__Stortinget.html</guid>
+ <pubDate>Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
+ <description><p>I helga kom det et hårreisende forslag fra Lysne II-utvalget satt
+ned av Forsvarsdepartementet. Lysne II-utvalget var bedt om å vurdere
+ønskelista til Forsvarets etterretningstjeneste (e-tjenesten), og har
+kommet med
+<a href="http://www.aftenposten.no/norge/Utvalg-sier-ja-til-at-E-tjenesten-far-overvake-innholdet-i-all-internett--og-telefontrafikk-som-krysser-riksgrensen-603232b.html">forslag
+om at e-tjenesten skal få lov til a avlytte all Internett-trafikk</a>
+som passerer Norges grenser. Få er klar over at dette innebærer at
+e-tjenesten får tilgang til epost sendt til de fleste politiske
+partiene på Stortinget. Regjeringspartiet Høyre (@hoyre.no),
+støttepartiene Venstre (@venstre.no) og Kristelig Folkeparti (@krf.no)
+samt Sosialistisk Ventreparti (@sv.no) og Miljøpartiet de grønne
+(@mdg.no) har nemlig alle valgt å ta imot eposten sin via utenlandske
+tjenester. Det betyr at hvis noen sender epost til noen med en slik
+adresse vil innholdet i eposten, om dette forslaget blir vedtatt, gjøres
+tilgjengelig for e-tjenesten. Venstre, Sosialistisk Ventreparti og
+Miljøpartiet De Grønne har valgt å motta sin epost hos Google,
+Kristelig Folkeparti har valgt å motta sin epost hos Microsoft, og
+Høyre har valgt å motta sin epost hos Comendo med mottak i Danmark og
+Irland. Kun Arbeiderpartiet og Fremskrittspartiet har valgt å motta
+eposten sin i Norge, hos henholdsvis Intility AS og Telecomputing
+AS.</p>
+
+<p>Konsekvensen er at epost inn og ut av de politiske organisasjonene,
+til og fra partimedlemmer og partiets tillitsvalgte vil gjøres
+tilgjengelig for e-tjenesten for analyse og sortering. Jeg mistenker
+at kunnskapen som slik blir tilgjengelig vil være nyttig hvis en
+ønsker å vite hvilke argumenter som treffer publikum når en ønsker å
+påvirke Stortingets representanter.</p
+
+<p>Ved hjelp av MX-oppslag i DNS for epost-domene, tilhørende
+whois-oppslag av IP-adressene og traceroute for å se hvorvidt
+trafikken går via utlandet kan enhver få bekreftet at epost sendt til
+de omtalte partiene vil gjøres tilgjengelig for forsvarets
+etterretningstjeneste hvis forslaget blir vedtatt. En kan også bruke
+den kjekke nett-tjenesten <a href="http://ipinfo.io/">ipinfo.io</a>
+for å få en ide om hvor i verden en IP-adresse hører til.</p>
+
+<p>På den positive siden vil forslaget gjøre at enda flere blir
+motivert til å ta grep for å bruke
+<a href="https://www.torproject.org/">Tor</a> og krypterte
+kommunikasjonsløsninger for å kommunisere med sine kjære, for å sikre
+at privatsfæren vernes. Selv bruker jeg blant annet
+<a href="https://www.freedomboxfoundation.org/">FreedomBox</a> og
+<a href="https://whispersystems.org/">Signal</a> til slikt. Ingen av
+dem er optimale, men de fungerer ganske bra allerede og øker kostnaden
+for dem som ønsker å invadere mitt privatliv.</p>
+
+<p>For øvrig burde varsleren Edward Snowden få politisk asyl i
+Norge.</p>
+
+<!--
+
+venstre.no
+ venstre.no mail is handled by 10 aspmx.l.google.com.
+ venstre.no mail is handled by 20 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ venstre.no mail is handled by 20 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ venstre.no mail is handled by 30 aspmx2.googlemail.com.
+ venstre.no mail is handled by 30 aspmx3.googlemail.com.
+
+traceroute to aspmx.l.google.com (173.194.222.27), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
+ 1 uio-gw10.uio.no (129.240.6.1) 0.411 ms 0.438 ms 0.536 ms
+ 2 uio-gw8.uio.no (129.240.24.229) 0.375 ms 0.452 ms 0.548 ms
+ 3 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (128.39.65.17) 1.940 ms 1.950 ms 1.942 ms
+ 4 se-tug.nordu.net (109.105.102.108) 6.910 ms 6.949 ms 7.283 ms
+ 5 google-gw.nordu.net (109.105.98.6) 6.975 ms 6.967 ms 6.958 ms
+ 6 209.85.250.192 (209.85.250.192) 7.337 ms 7.286 ms 10.890 ms
+ 7 209.85.254.13 (209.85.254.13) 7.394 ms 209.85.254.31 (209.85.254.31) 7.586 ms 209.85.254.33 (209.85.254.33) 7.570 ms
+ 8 209.85.251.255 (209.85.251.255) 15.686 ms 209.85.249.229 (209.85.249.229) 16.118 ms 209.85.251.255 (209.85.251.255) 16.073 ms
+ 9 74.125.37.255 (74.125.37.255) 16.794 ms 216.239.40.248 (216.239.40.248) 16.113 ms 74.125.37.44 (74.125.37.44) 16.764 ms
+10 * * *
+
+mdg.no
+ mdg.no mail is handled by 1 aspmx.l.google.com.
+ mdg.no mail is handled by 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ mdg.no mail is handled by 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ mdg.no mail is handled by 10 aspmx2.googlemail.com.
+ mdg.no mail is handled by 10 aspmx3.googlemail.com.
+sv.no
+ sv.no mail is handled by 1 aspmx.l.google.com.
+ sv.no mail is handled by 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ sv.no mail is handled by 5 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
+ sv.no mail is handled by 10 aspmx3.googlemail.com.
+ sv.no mail is handled by 10 aspmx2.googlemail.com.
+hoyre.no
+ hoyre.no mail is handled by 10 hoyre-no.mx1.comendosystems.com.
+ hoyre.no mail is handled by 20 hoyre-no.mx2.comendosystems.net.
+
+traceroute to hoyre-no.mx1.comendosystems.com (89.104.206.4), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
+ 1 uio-gw10.uio.no (129.240.6.1) 0.450 ms 0.510 ms 0.591 ms
+ 2 uio-gw8.uio.no (129.240.24.229) 0.383 ms 0.508 ms 0.596 ms
+ 3 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (128.39.65.17) 0.311 ms 0.315 ms 0.300 ms
+ 4 se-tug.nordu.net (109.105.102.108) 6.837 ms 6.842 ms 6.834 ms
+ 5 dk-uni.nordu.net (109.105.97.10) 26.073 ms 26.085 ms 26.076 ms
+ 6 dix.1000m.soeborg.ip.comendo.dk (192.38.7.22) 15.372 ms 15.046 ms 15.123 ms
+ 7 89.104.192.65 (89.104.192.65) 15.875 ms 15.990 ms 16.239 ms
+ 8 89.104.192.179 (89.104.192.179) 15.676 ms 15.674 ms 15.664 ms
+ 9 03dm-com.mx1.staysecuregroup.com (89.104.206.4) 15.637 ms * *
+
+krf.no
+ krf.no mail is handled by 10 krf-no.mail.protection.outlook.com.
+
+traceroute to krf-no.mail.protection.outlook.com (213.199.154.42), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
+ 1 uio-gw10.uio.no (129.240.6.1) 0.401 ms 0.438 ms 0.536 ms
+ 2 uio-gw8.uio.no (129.240.24.229) 11.076 ms 11.120 ms 11.204 ms
+ 3 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (128.39.65.17) 0.232 ms 0.234 ms 0.271 ms
+ 4 se-tug.nordu.net (109.105.102.108) 6.811 ms 6.820 ms 6.815 ms
+ 5 netnod-ix-ge-a-sth-4470.microsoft.com (195.245.240.181) 7.074 ms 7.013 ms 7.061 ms
+ 6 ae1-0.sto-96cbe-1b.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.225.161) 7.227 ms 7.362 ms 7.293 ms
+ 7 be-8-0.ibr01.ams.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.5.7) 41.993 ms 43.334 ms 41.939 ms
+ 8 be-1-0.ibr02.ams.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.4.214) 43.153 ms 43.507 ms 43.404 ms
+ 9 ae3-0.fra-96cbe-1b.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.5.17) 29.897 ms 29.831 ms 29.794 ms
+10 ae10-0.vie-96cbe-1a.ntwk.msn.net (198.206.164.1) 42.309 ms 42.130 ms 41.808 ms
+11 * ae8-0.vie-96cbe-1b.ntwk.msn.net (104.44.227.29) 41.425 ms *
+12 * * *
+
+arbeiderpartiet.no
+ arbeiderpartiet.no mail is handled by 10 mail.intility.com.
+ arbeiderpartiet.no mail is handled by 20 mail2.intility.com.
+
+traceroute to mail.intility.com (188.95.245.87), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
+ 1 uio-gw10.uio.no (129.240.6.1) 0.486 ms 0.508 ms 0.649 ms
+ 2 uio-gw8.uio.no (129.240.24.229) 0.416 ms 0.508 ms 0.620 ms
+ 3 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (128.39.65.17) 0.276 ms 0.278 ms 0.275 ms
+ 4 te3-1-2.br1.fn3.as2116.net (193.156.90.3) 0.374 ms 0.371 ms 0.416 ms
+ 5 he16-1-1.cr1.san110.as2116.net (195.0.244.234) 3.132 ms he16-1-1.cr2.oslosda310.as2116.net (195.0.244.48) 10.079 ms he16-1-1.cr1.san110.as2116.net (195.0.244.234) 3.353 ms
+ 6 te1-2-0.ar2.ulv89.as2116.net (195.0.243.194) 0.569 ms te5-0-0.ar2.ulv89.as2116.net (195.0.243.192) 0.661 ms 0.653 ms
+ 7 cD2EC45C1.static.as2116.net (193.69.236.210) 0.654 ms 0.615 ms 0.590 ms
+ 8 185.7.132.38 (185.7.132.38) 1.661 ms 1.808 ms 1.695 ms
+ 9 185.7.132.100 (185.7.132.100) 1.793 ms 1.943 ms 1.546 ms
+10 * * *
+
+frp.no
+ frp.no mail is handled by 10 mx03.telecomputing.no.
+ frp.no mail is handled by 20 mx01.telecomputing.no.
+
+traceroute to mx03.telecomputing.no (95.128.105.102), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
+ 1 uio-gw10.uio.no (129.240.6.1) 0.378 ms 0.402 ms 0.479 ms
+ 2 uio-gw8.uio.no (129.240.24.229) 0.361 ms 0.458 ms 0.548 ms
+ 3 oslo-gw1.uninett.no (128.39.65.17) 0.361 ms 0.352 ms 0.336 ms
+ 4 xe-2-2-0-0.san-peer2.osl.no.ip.tdc.net (193.156.90.16) 0.375 ms 0.366 ms 0.346 ms
+ 5 xe-2-0-2-0.ost-pe1.osl.no.ip.tdc.net (85.19.121.97) 0.780 ms xe-2-0-0-0.ost-pe1.osl.no.ip.tdc.net (85.19.121.101) 0.713 ms xe-2-0-2-0.ost-pe1.osl.no.ip.tdc.net (85.19.121.97) 0.759 ms
+ 6 cpe.xe-0-2-0-100.ost-pe1.osl.no.customer.tdc.net (85.19.26.46) 0.837 ms 0.755 ms 0.759 ms
+ 7 95.128.105.3 (95.128.105.3) 1.050 ms 1.288 ms 1.182 ms
+ 8 mx03.telecomputing.no (95.128.105.102) 0.717 ms 0.703 ms 0.692 ms
+
+-->