Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Sun Mar 1 15:51:43 UTC 2015


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 | 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