Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at seacom.mu
Sat Feb 28 06:23:54 UTC 2015



On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.
>
> I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream.
>
> However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.
>
> In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most of the time today would be 100M/30M.

Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL,
GPON, e.t.c.

If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the uplink
is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the
operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will
ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With
limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the
issue is a non-starter.

You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just
need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) reasonable
bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes a
choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would ask,
"What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON?" YMM will really
V, of course.

Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps
up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward)
performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network
operator runs it.

Mark.




More information about the NANOG mailing list