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.
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]
<mailto:[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*
