Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Sat Feb 28 08:51:04 UTC 2015

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 22:23 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.

Competition? What competition? I realize you’re not in the US, so perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius.

There is no such thing in the US. It’s oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst.

We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in infrastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form an effective monopoly on services.

> 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.

The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessarily defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on symmetrical technologies. That’s sort of inherent in the fact that asymmetrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and lower upstream speeds.

My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation where the downstream is faster than the upstream is not inappropriate for the vast majority of content consumers. The problem is that in most cases, consumers are not given adequate upstream bandwidth, regardless of the size of their downstream bandwidth.

If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I’m betting you would be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. Even if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast majority of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I’m pretty upstream-heavy for the average residential user.

Owen