[178594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Sat Feb 28 21:37:29 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRz84pAGrZ+G8AvBAmgaQj5SWBjKXj3ts1PR7tRFP7vJWA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 18:37:23 -0800
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
+1
Th spectral split between down and up is real, has existed for a very long t=
ime, and isn't a master of remapping.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
>=20
> Michael,
>=20
> You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to
> claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical reasons.=
>> On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>>> On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>=20
>>> 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
>> The cable companies didn't want "servers" on residential customers either=
,
>> and were
>> animated by that. Cable didn't really have much of a return path at all a=
t
>> first -- I remember
>> the stories of the crappy spectrum they were willing to allocate at first=
,
>> but as I recall
>> that was mainly because they hadn't transitioned to digital downstream an=
d
>> their analog
>> down was pretty precious. Once they made that transition, the animus
>> against residential
>> "servers" was pretty much the only excuse -- I'm pretty sure they could
>> map up/down/cable
>> channels any way they wanted after that.
>>=20
>> Mike
>>=20
>>=20
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>=20
>>>> 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
>>>> --
>>>> -Barry Shein
>>>>=20
>>>> The World | bzs@TheWorld.com |
>>>> http://www.TheWorld.com
>>>> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR,
>>>> Canada
>>>> Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *o=
o*
>>=20
