Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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
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.
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> ----- 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
> distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from
> Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download
> 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
> 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
> 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