Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
bzs at world.std.com
Tue Mar 3 05:59:18 UTC 2015
That's fine and very practical and understandable.
But it's no reason for the net not to keep marching forward at its own
pace which I think is more what's being discussed.
I'm pretty sure that prior to 2007 (year of the first iphone launch)
not many people were clamoring for full, graphical internet in their
Then all of a sudden they were.
And *poof*, down went Nokia and Motorola and Blackberry and others
(anyone remember WAP?) who no doubt had reasoned very carefully and
responsibly that would never happen, or not nearly at the pace it did.
Surely they had no desire to fall from their respective perches or
spend money "needlessly". Give people a few sports scores and the
weather etc on their phones and they'll be pretty happy.
Of course there were also quite a few directions and predictions which
failed, we tend to forget those. Such as that users would never stand
for widespread CGN, ftp couldn't be made to work properly, etc etc
etc. We still hear these predictions and to be honest they have my
sympathy but I can't deny the reality of a present where the vast
majority of users are NAT'd and seem reasonably satisfied.
Predicting the past is much easier than predicting the future, no
doubt about it.
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*
On March 2, 2015 at 10:28 khelms at zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote:
> That's certainly true and why we watch the trends of usage very closely and
> we project those terms into the future knowing that's imperfect.
> What we won't do is build networks based purely on guesses. We certainly
> see demand for upstream capacity increasing for residential customers, but
> that increase is slower than the increase in downstream demand growth. In
> all cases but pure greenfield situations the cost of deploying DSL or
> DOCSIS is significant less than deploying fiber. Even in greenfield
> situations PON, which is a asynchronous itself, is much less expensive than
> active Ethernet.
> In short synchronous connections cost more to deploy. Doing so without a
> knowing if or when consumers will actually pay for synchronous connections
> isn't something we're going to do.
More information about the NANOG