[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality



You mean CableLabs?
On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <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> 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> 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> 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>
>>>>> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com>
>>>>> Cc: "NANOG" <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> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>