[178577] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Clayton Zekelman)
Sat Feb 28 18:35:16 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net>
In-Reply-To: <12510710.909.1425165605520.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:35:06 -0500
To: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
And for historical reasons. The forward path started at TV channel 2. The r=
eturn path was shoe horned in to the frequencies below that, which limited t=
he amount of available spectrum for return path.
Originally this didn't matter much because the only thing it was used for wa=
s set top box communications and occasionally sending video to the head end f=
or community channel remote feeds.
To change the split would require replacement of all the active and passive R=
F equipment in the network.
Only now with he widespread conversion to digital cable are they able to fre=
e up enough spectrum to even consider moving the split at some point in the f=
uture.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
>=20
> As I said earlier, there are only so many channels available. Channels add=
ed to upload are taken away from download. People use upload so infrequently=
it would be gross negligence on the provider's behalf.=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> -----=20
> Mike Hammett=20
> Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
> http://www.ics-il.com=20
>=20
> ----- Original Message -----
>=20
> From: "Clayton Zekelman" <clayton@mnsi.net>=20
> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com>=20
> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM=20
> Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality=20
>=20
> You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return pa=
th existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable networks exite=
d?=20
>=20
> Sent from my iPhone=20
>=20
>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Can we stop the disingenuity?=20
>>=20
>> Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from=20
>> deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.=20
>>=20
>> One can argue all sorts of other "benefits" of this but when this=20
>> started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly=20
>> distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial=20
>> usage?=20
>>=20
>> Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth.=20
>>=20
>> Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of=20
>> kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line.=20
>>=20
>> That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy=20
>> were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses.=20
>>=20
>> That's all this was about.=20
>>=20
>> It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc.=20
>>=20
>> Now that bandwidth is growing rapidly and asymmetric is often=20
>> 10/50mbps or 20/100 it almost seems nonsensical in that regard, entire=20=
>> medium-sized ISPs ran on less than 10mbps symmetric not long ago. But=20
>> it still imposes an upper bound of sorts, along with addressing=20
>> limitations and bandwidth caps.=20
>>=20
>> That's all this is about.=20
>>=20
>> The telcos for many decades distinguished "business" voice service=20
>> from "residential" service, even for just one phone line, though they=20
>> mostly just winged it and if they declared you were defrauding them by=20=
>> using a residential line for a business they might shut you off and/or=20=
>> back bill you. Residential was quite a bit cheaper, most importantly=20
>> local "unlimited" (unmetered) talk was only available on residential=20
>> lines. Business lines were even coded 1MB (one m b) service, one=20
>> metered business (line).=20
>>=20
>> The history is clear and they've just reinvented the model for=20
>> internet but proactively enforced by technology rather than studying=20
>> your usage patterns or whatever they used to do, scan for business ads=20=
>> using "residential" numbers, beyond bandwidth usage analysis.=20
>>=20
>> And the CATV companies are trying to reinvent CATV pricing for=20
>> internet, turn Netflix (e.g.) into an analogue of HBO and other=20
>> premium CATV services.=20
>>=20
>> What's so difficult to understand here?=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> -Barry Shein=20
>>=20
>> The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com=20
>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada=20=
>> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
>=20
