[178524] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Feb 28 03:54:42 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <54F15EFA.6050003@seacom.mu>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:51:04 -0800
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 22:23 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> However, I=92d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be =
honest.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL,
> GPON, e.t.c.
>=20
> If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the =
uplink
> is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the
> operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will
> ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With
> limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the
> issue is a non-starter.
Competition? What competition? I realize you=92re not in the US, so =
perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius.
There is no such thing in the US. It=92s oligopolies at best and =
monopolies at worst.
We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in =
infrastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form =
an effective monopoly on services.
> You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just
> need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) =
reasonable
> bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes =
a
> choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would =
ask,
> "What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON?" YMM will =
really
> V, of course.
>=20
> Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps
> up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward)
> performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network
> operator runs it.
The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessarily =
defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on =
symmetrical technologies. That=92s sort of inherent in the fact that =
asymmetrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and =
lower upstream speeds.
My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation =
where the downstream is faster than the upstream is not inappropriate =
for the vast majority of content consumers. The problem is that in most =
cases, consumers are not given adequate upstream bandwidth, regardless =
of the size of their downstream bandwidth.
If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I=92m betting you =
would be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. =
Even if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast =
majority of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I=92m pretty =
upstream-heavy for the average residential user.
Owen
