Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists () gmail com>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms () zcorum com> wrote:
> "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."
>
> Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by having
> a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?

it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right?
there's some chatter that (queue akapella in 3...2....) upstream ack
packet loss is actually more detrimental to user experience than
downstream packet loss, so maybe more upstream just to protect (and
simplify) ack management is helpful?

> "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game
> servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an
> indication of an unhealthy market."
>
> Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage
> than you might think.  I don't think there is anything special about

because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
server also work just fine...

> symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and
> will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance
> stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as
> downstream demand.

possibly because the places where this is available are so few and so
far-between that 'users' don't generally know or see this? so ... err,
they won't know if it's better for their usecases or not.