[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> 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?
> 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.
>> 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.
>> 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
>> ----- 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
>> Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download
>> 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*