[178525] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Tinka)
Sat Feb 28 04:22:37 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:22:27 +0200
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <BFB4BD00-13B4-47EF-943A-3C6B7925239D@delong.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On 28/Feb/15 10:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Competition? What competition? I realize you=92re not in the US,...
Yes, I know competition in the U.S. is not where it ought to be :-).
My comment was more global, as we all use the same technologies around
the world, even though you do get varying levels of market conditions as
such.
> so perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius.
I am based in South Africa, which isn't saying much.
The .mu domain throws everyone off :-).
>
> There is no such thing in the US. It=92s oligopolies at best and monopo=
lies at worst.
>
> We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in inf=
rastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form an ef=
fective monopoly on services.
I'll continue to postpone my immigration to those unions :-).
> The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessaril=
y defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on s=
ymmetrical technologies. That=92s sort of inherent in the fact that asymm=
etrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and lower=
upstream speeds.
I agree.
>
> My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation w=
here 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.
This is where I disagree, because we are making the case for (the vast
majority of) customers based on the technologies they/we have always used=
=2E
We have seen what can happen to GSM networks when you put a smartphone
in the hands of an ordinary Jane. Not even the mobile operators saw that
one coming.
Let us open up the uplink pipes and see what happens. If we keep on
thinking that the patterns will always be the way they are today, the
patterns will always be the way they are today.
>
> If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I=92m betting you wo=
uld be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. Eve=
n if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast majo=
rity of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I=92m pretty upstr=
eam-heavy for the average residential user.
Yes! I would be very happy with that if it were reasonably reliable, or
degraded in a way that would at least leave me reasonably happy.
Symmetric circuits significantly reduce the likelihood of degradation on
the uplink more than asymmetric circuits do. So an asymmetric service on
a symmetric network is more likely to perform better than any service on
an asymmetric network. Ultimately, that is my point.
Mark.
