On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
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.
I'm well aware. I was there.
Mike
On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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*
