nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: Daniel Taylor <dtaylor () vocalabs com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:21:14 -0600
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund () medline com> wrote:How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship. On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50down.And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor () vocalabs com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
Current thread:
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Keith Medcalf (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mike Hale (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Bruce H McIntosh (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mike Hammett (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John Levine (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mark Tinka (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Bruce H McIntosh (Feb 27)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Daniel Taylor (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Steve Clark (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Måns Nilsson (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Barry Shein (Feb 28)
- Message not available
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Barry Shein (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Daniel Taylor (Feb 27)