nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:04:22 -0800
On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical reasons.
I'm well aware. I was there. Mike
On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote: You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return path existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable networks exited? The cable companies didn't want "servers" on residential customers either, and were animated by that. Cable didn't really have much of a return path at all at first -- I remember the stories of the crappy spectrum they were willing to allocate at first, but as I recall that was mainly because they hadn't transitioned to digital downstream and their analog down was pretty precious. Once they made that transition, the animus against residential "servers" was pretty much the only excuse -- I'm pretty sure they could map up/down/cable channels any way they wanted after that. Mike Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs () world std com <mailto:bzs () world std com>> wrote: Can we stop the disingenuity? Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. One can argue all sorts of other "benefits" of this but when this started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial usage? Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line. That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses. That's all this was about. It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc. Now that bandwidth is growing rapidly and asymmetric is often 10/50mbps or 20/100 it almost seems nonsensical in that regard, entire medium-sized ISPs ran on less than 10mbps symmetric not long ago. But it still imposes an upper bound of sorts, along with addressing limitations and bandwidth caps. That's all this is about. The telcos for many decades distinguished "business" voice service from "residential" service, even for just one phone line, though they mostly just winged it and if they declared you were defrauding them by using a residential line for a business they might shut you off and/or back bill you. Residential was quite a bit cheaper, most importantly local "unlimited" (unmetered) talk was only available on residential lines. Business lines were even coded 1MB (one m b) service, one metered business (line). The history is clear and they've just reinvented the model for internet but proactively enforced by technology rather than studying your usage patterns or whatever they used to do, scan for business ads using "residential" numbers, beyond bandwidth usage analysis. And the CATV companies are trying to reinvent CATV pricing for internet, turn Netflix (e.g.) into an analogue of HBO and other premium CATV services. What's so difficult to understand here?-- -Barry SheinThe World | bzs () TheWorld com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Lyndon Nerenberg (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Lyndon Nerenberg (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mark Tinka (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Lyndon Nerenberg (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Lyndon Nerenberg (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Lyndon Nerenberg (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Matthew Kaufman (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Bob Evans (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Clayton Zekelman (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Mar 01)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Owen DeLong (Feb 28)