[178606] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun Mar 1 01:04:55 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <21746.35420.759630.472893@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:00:49 -0800
To: Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>> causes enough interference to prevent reverse adsl (i.e. greater =
bandwidth
>> from customer to exchange) from working well.
>=20
> So SDSL didn't exist? Anyhow, *DSL is falling so far behind it's
> difficult to analyze what could have been.
>=20
SDSL existed, but every bps upstream that you get in SDSL is a bps that =
you
can=E2=80=99t use for downstream. Usually in 128kbps chunks. So, for =
example, if you
have a line that will support ADSL/VDSL at 1536/768, it can also work at
2048/256 or 1280/1024. For SDSL, you=E2=80=99d get a maximum of =
1152/1152 on
that same line.
Looking at my usage patterns, 1536/768 is probably the best balance. =
However,
I=E2=80=99d bet that the vast majority of residential users would be =
happier with 2048/256
than 1536/768. I know that 1152/1152 definitely wouldn=E2=80=99t be =
desirable in my case
or in most cases.
Now, as speeds get higher and the downstream speed starts to be adequate =
or
exceed adequate, getting close to symmetry looks more appealing because
stealing from the downstream channel to provide faster uploads on the =
occasions
when the traffic pattern shifts is less painful most of the time.
Still, that doesn=E2=80=99t mean that symmetrical is the best choice in =
all cases.
>> Some operators used and continue to use asymmetric bandwidth profiles =
and
>> bandwidth caps as methods for driving up revenue rather than anything =
else
>> in particular. International cellular roaming plans come to mind as =
one of
>> the more egregious example of this, but there are many others.
>=20
> Sure. once it became institutionalized and the market got used to it
> why not sell tiered bandwidth services at different price points, but
> that could have been true of symmetrical service also.
And, indeed, it is even at the large end of the spectrum, even today.
A 100Mbps circuit will cost you a little more than 10% of a 1G circuit.
A 1G circuit will cost a little more than 10% of a 10G circuit, etc.
Oddly, however, at the residential side, this often is inverse. Often,
a 10M service will cost you less than 1/2 of a 20M service which is
again significantly less than 1/2 the price of a 50M service.
For example:
10M/1M $45/month
20M/5M $120/month
50M/10M $300/month
I don=E2=80=99t know if this is still an accurate reflection of any =
actual provider=E2=80=99s
pricing, but it is adequately exemplary of several that are out there =
today.
Owen
