On Feb 28, 2015 7:15 PM, "Michael Thomas" <m...@mtcc.com
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:clay...@mnsi.net>>
To: "Barry Shein" <b...@world.std.com
<mailto:b...@world.std.com>>
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org
<mailto: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
<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
<mailto: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*
