Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
mike at mtcc.com
Sun Mar 1 16:04:22 UTC 2015
On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to
> claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical
I'm well aware. I was there.
> On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com
> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
> On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
> You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward
> path/return path existed LONG before residential Internet
> access over cable networks exited?
> The cable companies didn't want "servers" on residential customers
> either, and were
> animated by that. Cable didn't really have much of a return path
> at all at first -- I remember
> the stories of the crappy spectrum they were willing to allocate
> at first, but as I recall
> that was mainly because they hadn't transitioned to digital
> downstream and their analog
> down was pretty precious. Once they made that transition, the
> animus against residential
> "servers" was pretty much the only excuse -- I'm pretty sure they
> could map up/down/cable
> channels any way they wanted after that.
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> local "unlimited" (unmetered) talk was only available on
> 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
> premium CATV services.
> What's so difficult to understand here?
> -Barry Shein
> The World | bzs at 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