You mean CableLabs? On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@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" <m...@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" <m...@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 <na...@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" <clay...@mnsi.net> >>>>> To: "Barry Shein" <b...@world.std.com> >>>>> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@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 <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* >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
