nanog mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

From: Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:20:31 -0800

On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:


You mean CableLabs?



Yes.

Mike
On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike () mtcc com <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote: 


    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*
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: