Correct. For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in
learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer), which are used to ³split² the RF
spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be
amplified independently, before recombining the two portions. I believe
this was done to accomplish unity gain in each direction independently.
Also, I¹d like to note that there have been a few comments in this thread
that lead me to believe some folks are confusing asymmetrical routing
paths with asymmetrical speeds. Don¹t confuse the two as they have nearly
nothing to do with one another.
-Josh
On 3/2/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-requ...@nanog.org"
wrote:
>--
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500
>From: Clayton Zekelman
>To: Barry Shein
>Cc: NANOG
>Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
>Message-ID: <32d3c16d-0f4d-45ba-99f8-d41fe23d4...@mnsi.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be
>designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to
>deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced
>business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture
>of the network they were overlaying this "new" service on top of.
>
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>>On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>>>On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clay...@mnsi.net (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?
>>You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist?
>>>Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein 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*
>>--
>>-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*
>
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable
proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to
copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, dis
