[178522] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 28 00:52:39 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F14EDE.8010005@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:48:54 -0800
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in =
the
> upward direction...
>=20
> 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=92m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video =
chat justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.
I=92m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I=92d love to have =
everyone have 1G/1G capability even if it=92s 100:1 oversubscribed on =
the upstream.
However, I=92d 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
