Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Sun Mar 1 16:11:11 UTC 2015


On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> Exactly what are you basing that on?  Like I said, none of the MSOs or 
> vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about 
> OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good 
> enough for OTT
>

Being at Packetcable at the time?

Mike

> On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     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
>>                     <mailto: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