[178391] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Helms)
Fri Feb 27 13:25:13 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <54F0AE45.3070902@paradoxnetworks.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 13:04:39 -0500
From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
AFC, the only shelf I worked on that would silently allow you to allocate
so much bandwidth to the ADSL cards that voice wouldn't work....
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
--------------------------------
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
--------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net>
wrote:
>
> On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Jack,
>>
>> I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a
>> standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds
>> than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
>>
>>
>>
> Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC)
> supported 8/1.5 for ADSL and I think 24/1 for ADSL2+. My point wasn't about
> standards, but an actual event. There is a perception that faster download
> is an upgrade, even if your upload is reduced. For the most part, they were
> right. Only a small percentage of the customers were upset at the upload
> decrease.
>
> The kicker was, the max downlink speed they allowed was 10. If they could
> have supported the right annex, they could have had more upload. Vendor
> limitations and such. :(
>
>
> Jack
>
>
