Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Michael Thomas
mike at mtcc.com
Sun Mar 1 16:20:31 UTC 2015
On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> You mean CableLabs?
>
Yes.
Mike
> On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com
> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the
>> MSOs or vendors involved in the protocol development had any
>> concerns about OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the
>> networks weren't good enough for OTT
>>
>
> Being at Packetcable at the time?
>
> Mike
>
>> On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com
>> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/28/2015 06:38 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>>
>>> You're off on this. When PacketCable 1.0 was in development
>>> and it's early deployment there were no OTT VOIP providers
>>> of note. Vonage at that time was trying sell their services
>>> to the MSOs and only when that didn't work or did they start
>>> going directly to consumers via SIP.
>>>
>>> The prioritization mechanisms in PacketCable exist because
>>> the thought was that they were needed to compete with POTS
>>> and that's it and at that time, when upstreams were more
>>> contended that was probably the case.
>>>
>>
>> It was both. They wanted to compete with pots *and* they
>> wanted to have something
>> that nobody else (= oot) could compete with. The entire
>> exercise was trying to bring the old
>> telco billing model into the cable world, hence all of the
>> DOCSIS QoS, RSVP, etc, etc.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2015 7:15 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com
>>> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/28/2015 03:35 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>>
>>> And for historical reasons. The forward path
>>> started at TV channel 2. The return path was shoe
>>> horned in to the frequencies below that, which
>>> limited the amount of available spectrum for return
>>> path.
>>>
>>> Originally this didn't matter much because the only
>>> thing it was used for was set top box communications
>>> and occasionally sending video to the head end for
>>> community channel remote feeds.
>>>
>>> To change the split would require replacement of all
>>> the active and passive RF equipment in the network.
>>>
>>> Only now with he widespread conversion to digital
>>> cable are they able to free up enough spectrum to
>>> even consider moving the split at some point in the
>>> future.
>>>
>>>
>>> Something else to keep in mind, is that the cable
>>> companies wanted to use the
>>> upstream for voice using DOCSIS QoS to create a big
>>> advantage over anybody
>>> else who might want to just do voice over the top.
>>>
>>> There was lots of talk about business advantage, evil
>>> home servers, etc, etc
>>> and no care at all about legitimate uses for customer
>>> upstream. If they wanted
>>> to shape DOCSIS to have better upstream, all they had to
>>> say is "JUMP" to cablelabs
>>> and the vendors and it would have happened.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Mike Hammett
>>> <nanog at ics-il.net <mailto:nanog at ics-il.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> As I said earlier, there are only so many
>>> channels available. Channels added to upload are
>>> taken away from download. People use upload so
>>> infrequently it would be gross negligence on the
>>> provider's behalf.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Clayton Zekelman" <clayton at mnsi.net
>>> <mailto:clayton at mnsi.net>>
>>> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com
>>> <mailto:bzs at world.std.com>>
>>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org
>>> <mailto:nanog at nanog.org>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net
>>> Neutrality
>>>
>>> You do of course realize that the asymmetry in
>>> CATV forward path/return path existed LONG
>>> before residential Internet access over cable
>>> networks exited?
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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*
>>>
>>>
>>
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list