Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Rogers, Josh josh.rogers at twcable.com
Mon Mar 2 15:57:25 UTC 2015


Correct.  For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in
learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer), which are used to ³split² the RF
spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be
amplified independently, before recombining the two portions.  I believe
this was done to accomplish unity gain in each direction independently.

Also, I¹d like to note that there have been a few comments in this thread
that lead me to believe some folks are confusing asymmetrical routing
paths with asymmetrical speeds.  Don¹t confuse the two as they have nearly
nothing to do with one another.

-Josh

On 3/2/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request at nanog.org" <nanog-request at nanog.org>
wrote:

>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500
>From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton at mnsi.net>
>To: Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>
>Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>Message-ID: <32D3C16D-0F4D-45BA-99F8-D41FE23D472C at mnsi.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain;      charset=us-ascii
>
>Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be
>designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to
>deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced
>business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture
>of the network they were overlaying this "new" service on top of.
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>>On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
>>>On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton at mnsi.net (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?
>>You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist?
>>>Sent from my iPhone
>>>>On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <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           |
>>>>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*
>>--
>>        -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*
>


This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.


More information about the NANOG mailing list