Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is sending a stream out to a rendezvous point 
> > that is then sending it back to N people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream bandwidth 
> > will be N*upstream for each of them.
>
> But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the
> upward direction...
>
> When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do
> some work without gouging my eyes out.

No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat justified a need for symmetry when in reality, 
it does not.

I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 
oversubscribed on the upstream.

However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.

In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not 
as much as I wish I had more downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most of the time 
today would be 100M/30M.

YMMV.

Owen