Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Not a problem, the discussion was getting a bit out of hand so misunderstandings are unsuprising. Thank you for adding your expertise and experiences. -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 06:21 , Kelly Setzer wrote: > > Many other organizations who were innovating will be affected by the new > rules. Many of those organizations are very small and cannot afford the > army of lawyers that Verizon can. Such as? Can you provide any actual examples of harmful e

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Barry, First, I want to apologize. I (badly) misread your email, but in case I should not have responded that way. I would have gotten this out sooner, but I was traveling back from the CableLabs conference. Second, my assertion is simply that Usenet servers aren't automagically symmetrical in

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Many other organizations who were innovating will be affected by the new rules. Many of those organizations are very small and cannot afford the army of lawyers that Verizon can. Judgements as to whether Net Neutrality helps or harms any specific industry will be inevitably guided by politics. T

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

They want to bang on about the ruling harming innovation and competition. My response: "Well, you were neither innovating nor competing as is, so no harm done."

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

From: Scott Helms > >/em shrug > >I can't help it if you don't like real world data. >On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > >> >> Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you >> were asserting. Generally when someone says they don't understand me I assume it's my

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

/em shrug I can't help it if you don't like real world data. On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > > Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you > were asserting. > > From: Scott Helms > >Odd how the graphing for the top 1000 Usenet servers showed exactly the >

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you were asserting. From: Scott Helms >Odd how the graphing for the top 1000 Usenet servers showed exactly the >pattern I predicted. >On Mar 2, 2015 3:46 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > >> >> > Anything based on NNTP would be extremely

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

fttc in uk works great for client code push remote installs , even faster than some offices since the fibre nodes are less contended. seen 18mb up work fine and sustained with voip in parallel as well colin Sent from my iPhone On 3 Mar 2015, at 16:20, Tim Franklin wrote: >> I meant that on the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> I meant that on the Internet as a whole it is unusual for such speeds to > actually be realized in practice due to various issues. > > 8-10Mb/s seems to be what one can expect without going to distributed > protocols. Really? I have 2 x VDSL (40/10) to my house, running MLPPP. I can get a su

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's fine and very practical and understandable. But it's no reason for the net not to keep marching forward at its own pace which I think is more what's being discussed. I'm pretty sure that prior to 2007 (year of the first iphone launch) not many people were clamoring for full, graphical int

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On March 1, 2015 at 16:13 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: > > On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > > > there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was > > > commercial. Another was that m

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Barry Shein wrote: > Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant > changes to the protocol or human behavior. > > We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and > without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Odd how the graphing for the top 1000 Usenet servers showed exactly the pattern I predicted. On Mar 2, 2015 3:46 PM, "Barry Shein" wrote: > > > Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant > > changes to the protocol or human behavior. > > > > We ran significant Us

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant > changes to the protocol or human behavior. > > We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and > without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. > On Mar 1, 2015 9:11

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Unless there is significant stupidly-done bufferbloat, where the >"insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction" is delayed >because the big blocks of the upload are causing a traffic jam in the upstream >pipe. Which has nothing at all to do with the asymmetry of the circ

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 09:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > A. Me - "Hey genius, why don't you download a movie about networks > because my upload does not affect your streaming movie download > except for the insignificant amount of control traffic in the > opposite direction." > Unless there is significant

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28-Feb-15 21:55, Barry Shein wrote: > On February 28, 2015 at 17:20 na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) 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

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> > >::AWG:: Strawman Alert! > >Nobody's talking about taking poor Erlang behind the barn and shooting him. > >We're talking about being able to send upstream at a reasonable/comparable >rate as downstream. > > >Mike Exactly, now you see the dilemma. What is reasonable/comparable? Is

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> >It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload to >begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. >How many more people would stream to twitch or youtube or skype if they didn't >have to hear this, "Are you uploading? You're slowing down the downl

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 09:20 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any inst

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>Average != Peak. > What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time. What matters is av

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>> I was an ISP in the 1990s and our first DSL offerings were SDSL >> symmetric services to replace more expensive T-1 circuits. When >> we got into residential it was with SDSL and then the consumers >> wanted more downstream so ADSL was invented. I was there, I >> know th

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>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 distin

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

G >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 EXIST

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's certainly true and why we watch the trends of usage very closely and we project those terms into the future knowing that's imperfect. What we won't do is build networks based purely on guesses. We certainly see demand for upstream capacity increasing for residential customers, but that inc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

te backup. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Aled Morris" To: "Scott Helms" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 9:17:33 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on N

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms wrote: > We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same > on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus > 50/12 accounts. perhaps because there are no widely-deployed applications that are designed wit

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

My apologies for the implication. I meant that on the Internet as a whole it is unusual for such speeds to actually be realized in practice due to various issues. 8-10Mb/s seems to be what one can expect without going to distributed protocols. On 03/02/2015 09:06 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Da

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, The sold speeds are all actually less than the actual speeds. The PON customers are slightly over provisioned and the DOCSIS customers are over provisioned a bit more. On Mar 2, 2015 10:01 AM, "Daniel Taylor" wrote: > What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? > >

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? Statistically speaking, those might *be* symmetric. On 03/02/2015 08:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth >24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/02/2015 06:22 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote: > I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. > Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. > > People don't miss what they have never had. I would agree with that statement in a slightly modified form: "People don't

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote: "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level." Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? If the option

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: D

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15 7:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Scott, > > Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between > servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running > locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? The most densly connected relays

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/15 1:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >>> bandwidth caps. >> >> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing >> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? > > CIDR had not

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Frank was the most vocal… the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in” assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64 nonsense. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad wrote: >> O

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >>> bandwidth caps. >> >> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing >> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? >

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >> bandwidth caps. > > let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing > since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity. CIDR was inv

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

In article <54f32f1a.9090...@meetinghouse.net> you write: >Scott, > >Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between >servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running >locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? There's always a lo

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Hey Barry - you ran some rather huge NNTP servers, back in the day, you have any comments on this? Scott Helms wrote: Miles, Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a few servers are the source ori

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I am not normally, willingly, on nanog. My emailbox is full enough. I am responding, mostly, to a post I saw last night, where the author complained about the horrid performance he got when attempting a simultaneous up and download on a X/512k upload DSL link. That is so totally fixable now, at sp

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the same frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require completely redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and tap filters in the plant. At the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 3/1/2015 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: They didn't want to give channels for internet bandwidth either. Life would have been *far* more simple had the MSO's not *forced* the hardware designer to use their crappy noisy back channel, such as it was. The move from analog -- which was happe

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

t;NANOG" 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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

and it would have happened. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I said earlier, there are only so many channels

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Michael, Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the same frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require completely redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and tap filters in the plant. At the same time we'd have to replace all of the modems,

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: > On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > > there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was > > commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively > > asymmetric to start with so

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

i.net>> To: "Barry Shein" mailto:b...@world.std.com>> Cc: "NANOG" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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"

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 03/01/2015 05:08 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote: 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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

e: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> &

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

ilto:b...@world.std.com>> Cc: "NANOG" 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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Miles, Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a few servers are the source original content and how long individual servers choose (and have the disk) to keep specific content. It was never designed to

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Scott, Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment? Miles Fidelman Scott Helms wrote: Anything based on NNTP would be extremely

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant changes to the protocol or human behavior. We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, "Miles Fidelman

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Aled Morris wrote: Sadly we don't have many "killer applications" for symmetric residential bandwidth, but that's likely because we don't have the infrastructure to incubate these applications. Come to think of it, if USENET software wasn't so cumbersome, I kind of wonder if today's "social

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:25:41PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jba...@paradoxnetworks.net): > On 2/27/2015 5:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote: > >What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical > >last mile. And no

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: > Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was > symmetrical. The rot set in with V.90 "56k" modems - they were asymmetric - only the downstream was 56k. The only way to achieve this in the analogue realm was by digital synthesis at

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example > > backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it > > takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week, > > blue sky. > > If that teraby

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example > backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it > takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week, > blue sky. If that terabyte drive holds

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

>> causes enough interference to prevent reverse adsl (i.e. greater bandwidth >> from customer to exchange) from working well. > > So SDSL didn't exist? Anyhow, *DSL is falling so far behind it's > difficult to analyze what could have been. > SDSL existed, but every bps upstream that you get in

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Clayton Zekelman" > To: "Barry Shein" > Cc: "NANOG" > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM &

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: > On 28/02/2015 22:38, Barry Shein wrote: > > Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from > > deploying "commercial" services. > > there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was >

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> > Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from > > deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. N, it was not. It was a technology issue from the very beginning. Technology limits of coax cable plants even before DOCSIS. Also dslam designs were such that the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> http://www.ics-il.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Barry Shein" > To: "NANOG" > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:38:34 PM > Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality > > > Can we stop the dising

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

t; >>> >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> >>> From: "Clayton Zekelman" >>> To: "

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

+1 Th spectral split between down and up is real, has existed for a very long time, and isn't a master of remapping. Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) > On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Michael, > > You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> In my part of the world, a well-known service provider runs FTTC and > then runs VDSL into the home. Ummh... I live in a 3rd word country. Oh Canada! signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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" wrote: > > On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote: > >> You do of course realize that the

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 1/Mar/15 02:42, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: > > > No. But that's because they are using the fibre pedestals to deliver a high bandwidth DSL service. The condo customers still get DSLon copper, but because the copper pipe is so short they can crank

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: > (N.B.: "we forced long TTLs to reduce the traffic necessary across our > peering points." At one point, the cable people said they had one, > count 'em one, peering link at 44 megabits/s, to serve all cable > companies [with their own inter

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/28/2015 7:24 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote: How did I know about the DNS server manipulation? I worked for a Web hosting company with about 3,000 domains being served. Whenever the company renumbered (until it finally got its own IP allocation in order to multi-home) we would have to service

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 02:49 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/28/2015 4:38 PM, Barry Shein wrote: >> Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from >> deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. >> > Hmm, at one point I was going to ask if anyone else remembered a long > time ago I

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Michael Thomas wrote: > 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. Like DOCSIS 3.1? If I recall correctly, theoretical upstream up to 2.5gb/s. Your impl

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > The question is, if YOU paid for the fiber to be run to their ped, would they > hook you up? No. But that's because they are using the fibre pedestals to deliver a high bandwidth DSL service. The condo customers still get DSLon copper, but be

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/28/2015 6:17 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: Mind you, the truly annoying part of this story (for me) is knowing Telus has fibre pedestals not a block away, with enough bandwidth to serve up IPTV to all the condos in the neighbourhood. But I'm in the marina across the street. Since there are o

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

> It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc. Whenever any vendor spouts "this is what our customers want" you know they are talking pure bullshit. The only customers who know what they "want" are the microscopic percentage who know what's actually possible, and we are d

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

the provider's behalf. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Clayton Zekelman" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Sta

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

age- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 14:02 To: Lamar Owen Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what it potent

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

, 2015 14:02 >To: Lamar Owen >Cc: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality > >>> In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what >it potentially means in the long term... besides what they state that >they int

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

works and no one knows why. >-Original Message- >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rob McEwen >Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 12:30 >To: nanog@nanog.org >Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality > >On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, L

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

: "Barry Shein" > Cc: "NANOG" > 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

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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 animate

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

l.com - Original Message - From: "Clayton Zekelman" To: "Barry Shein" Cc: "NANOG" 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 pa

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 28/02/2015 22:38, Barry Shein wrote: > Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from > deploying "commercial" services. there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively asymmetric t

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 wrote: > > > Can we stop the disingenuity? > > Asymmetric service was intr

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 02/28/2015 02:38 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. Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. That's exactly how I remember why we

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On 2/28/2015 4:38 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. Hmm, at one point I was going to ask if anyone else remembered a long time ago ISPs having something i

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Spoken by someone that apparently has no idea how things work. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Barry Shein" To: "NANOG" Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:38:34 PM Subject: Re: Verizon

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

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 comme

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

On February 27, 2015 at 14:50 khe...@zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote: > > I am absolutely not against good upstream rates! I do have a problem with > people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply > because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet. It's push/

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

I'm always a little suspicious when "this is all customers want" is a cover for "this is all customers will get". It's like the time I was tossed from a local "all you can eat" buffet (in the days of my admittedly huge appetite) the owner telling me yes, that is *ALL* you can eat, goodbye! Presc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

Back in the USENET days we advertised that we carried acccess to all USENET groups. One day a customer called asking to speak to me and said he'd like to complain, we did NOT carry all USENET groups. I said ok which don't we carry, mistakes are possible, I'll add them. He got cagey. I said wel

  1   2   3   >