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*
>>>
>>
>

Reply via email to