Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Sun Mar 1 16:20:31 UTC 2015


On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> You mean CableLabs?
>

Yes.

Mike
> On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com 
> <mailto:mike at mtcc.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     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