Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Sat Feb 28 21:47:41 UTC 2015

On February 27, 2015 at 14:50 khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote:
 > 
 > I am absolutely not against good upstream rates!  I do have a problem with
 > people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply
 > because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet.

It's push/pull.

Lousy upstream bandwidth leads to remote siting of web hosting for
example. From that we should conclude people don't want to host their
websites at home? Similar statements have been made about remote
backup.

These glib declarations of what the market wants are just that, glib
and not really based on much anything.

Besides, it's a (rapidly) moving target. People once argued that
56kbps symmetric (dial-up) was plenty for the average user. Then when
ISDN promised 128kbps many thought it was amazing and should be put
into every home and we'd finally have the internet we dreamed of, a
lot of it was deployed in Europe and Japan.

As I remember EFF (and others) fought long and hard for broader
deployment of 2B+D ISDN in the US.

As some of us who looked into the technology kept pointing out it was
an inherent loser, too expensive to deploy very widely and never
intended or designed for raw bandwidth distribution. Its economics
depended on the telcos "owning" per msg email fees (it was designed in
another era) etc so it was more a give away the cameras and sell the
film sort of technology, they had to "own", i.e., be able to bill, the
whole stack (email, etc.) as then perceived.

There is a strong tendency to rationalize the current state of the
technology.

-- 
        -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*