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" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "Barry Shein" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: "NANOG" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
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
<[email protected] <mailto:[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*
