[178573] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Zekelman)
Sat Feb 28 18:14:34 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net>
In-Reply-To: <21746.17258.270398.162820@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:14:18 -0500
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return path=
existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable networks exited?=
=20
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Can we stop the disingenuity?
>=20
> Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
> deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.
>=20
> 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?
>=20
> Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth.
>=20
> Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of
> kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line.
>=20
> That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy
> were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses.
>=20
> That's all this was about.
>=20
> It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> That's all this is about.
>=20
> 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).
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> What's so difficult to understand here?
>=20
> --=20
> -Barry Shein
>=20
> The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.=
com
> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Can=
ada
> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
