Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Scott Helms khelms at zcorum.com
Mon Mar 2 14:09:46 UTC 2015


That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is
that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less
upstream capacity than downstream.  That upstream scarcity means that for
DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth
will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost
consumers more.

WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be
asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs
invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain.
The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are
putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain.
On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, "Daniel Taylor" <dtaylor at vocalabs.com> wrote:

> Personally?
> If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50.
>
> That way my uploads would take even less time.
>
> It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes,
> and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour.
>
> On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>>
>> "50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out
>> of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes."
>>
>> Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25?  My point is not that upstream
>> speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and
>> unless the market changes won't be in the near term.  Downstream demand is
>> growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000
>> --------------------------------
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> --------------------------------
>>
>>
>
> --
> Daniel Taylor          VP Operations            Vocal Laboratories, Inc.
> dtaylor at vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/            (612)235-5711
>
>


More information about the NANOG mailing list