Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Sun Mar 1 16:04:22 UTC 2015

On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> 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.
>

I'm well aware. I was there.

Mike

> On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, 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?
>
>
>     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 at 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 and 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.
>
>     Mike
>
>
>         Sent from my iPhone
>
>             On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein
>             <bzs at world.std.com <mailto:bzs at 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 at 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*
>
>