Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>]

On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Exactly what are you basing that on?  Like I said, none of the MSOs or 
> vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about 
> OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good 
> enough for OTT

Being at Packetcable at the time?

Mike

> On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com 
> <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 02/28/2015 06:38 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> >     You're off on this.  When PacketCable 1.0 was in development and
> >     it's early deployment there were no OTT VOIP providers of note. 
> >     Vonage at that time was trying sell their services to the MSOs
> >     and only when that didn't work or did they start going directly
> >     to consumers via SIP.
> >
> >     The prioritization mechanisms in PacketCable exist because the
> >     thought was that they were needed to compete with POTS and that's
> >     it and at that time, when upstreams were more contended that was
> >     probably the case.
>
>     It was both. They wanted to compete with pots *and* they wanted to
>     have something
>     that nobody else (= oot) could compete with. The entire exercise
>     was trying to bring the old
>     telco billing model into the cable world, hence all of the DOCSIS
>     QoS, RSVP, etc, etc.
>
>     Mike
>
> >     On Feb 28, 2015 7:15 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com
> >     <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >         On 02/28/2015 03:35 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> >
> >             And for historical reasons.  The forward path started at
> >             TV channel 2.  The return path was shoe horned in to the
> >             frequencies below that, which limited the amount of
> >             available spectrum for return path.
> >
> >             Originally this didn't matter much because the only thing
> >             it was used for was set top box communications and
> >             occasionally sending video to the head end for community
> >             channel remote feeds.
> >
> >             To change the split would require replacement of all the
> >             active and passive RF equipment in the network.
> >
> >             Only now with he widespread conversion to digital cable
> >             are they able to free up enough spectrum to even consider
> >             moving the split at some point in the future.
> >
> >
> >         Something else to keep in mind, is that the cable companies
> >         wanted to use the
> >         upstream for voice using DOCSIS QoS to create a big advantage
> >         over anybody
> >         else who might want to just do voice over the top.
> >
> >         There was lots of talk about business advantage, evil home
> >         servers, etc, etc
> >         and no care at all about legitimate uses for customer
> >         upstream. If they wanted
> >         to shape DOCSIS to have better upstream, all they had to say
> >         is "JUMP" to cablelabs
> >         and the vendors and it would have happened.
> >
> >         Mike
> >
> >
> >             Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >                 On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Mike Hammett
> >                 <nanog () ics-il net <mailto:nanog () ics-il net>> wrote:
> >
> >                 As I said earlier, there are only so many channels
> >                 available. Channels added to upload are taken away
> >                 from download. People use upload so infrequently it
> >                 would be gross negligence on the provider's behalf.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                 -----
> >                 Mike Hammett
> >                 Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >                 http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >                 ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >                 From: "Clayton Zekelman" <clayton () mnsi net
> >                 <mailto:clayton () mnsi net>>
> >                 To: "Barry Shein" <bzs () world std com
> >                 <mailto:bzs () world std com>>
> >                 Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org <mailto:nanog () nanog org>>
> >                 Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM
> >                 Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
> >
> >                 You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV
> >                 forward path/return path existed LONG before
> >                 residential Internet access over cable networks exited?
> >
> >                 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 Shein
> >
> >                     The World | bzs () TheWorld com
> >                     <mailto: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*