[178600] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Sat Feb 28 22:30:26 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:28:16 -0500
To: Clayton Zekelman <clayton@mnsi.net>
In-Reply-To: <82748B6A-D6D7-4963-A749-47EF4D94DD8D@mnsi.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton@mnsi.net (Clayton Zekelman) wrote:
> You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return path existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable networks exited?
You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can we stop the disingenuity?
> >
> > Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
> > deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth.
> >
> > Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of
> > kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line.
> >
> > That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy
> > were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses.
> >
> > That's all this was about.
> >
> > It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > That's all this is about.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > What's so difficult to understand here?
> >
> > --
> > -Barry Shein
> >
> > 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 *oo*
--
-Barry Shein
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 *oo*
