Michael, You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical reasons. On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> > On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, 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? >> > > The cable companies didn't want "servers" on residential customers either, > and were > animated by that. Cable didn't really have much of a return path at all at > first -- I remember > the stories of the crappy spectrum they were willing to allocate at first, > but as I recall > that was mainly because they hadn't transitioned to digital downstream and > their analog > down was pretty precious. Once they made that transition, the animus > against residential > "servers" was pretty much the only excuse -- I'm pretty sure they could > map up/down/cable > channels any way they wanted after that. > > Mike > > >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <b...@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 | b...@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* >>> >> >
