+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 <[email protected]> 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. >> On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 | [email protected] | >>>> 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* >>
