Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote: I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps. BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction. The Cloud solved most peoples issues with NAT. Rather than having IPv6 to a fileserver at my house, I've got the option of IPv4 to dropbox anywhere. Most people store all their data on remote servers now. That means unless they're uploading a new picture to facebook or a new video to youtube, 90% of their at home usage of their wireless will be downloads (looking at existing content). Given that some people are getting Active Ethernet to the home, with IPv6, we might see an eventual new killer app that changes the way bandwidth is used, but I think right now the reason we're not seeing a killer app is because of two things: 1. Users don't have the bandwidth. Most people really are on constrained pipes that can't tolerate heavy uploads 2. NAT still breaks things for everyone so people can't do it.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
I wasn't being funny. :-) That was about a quarter to a third of a /wonderful/ #takethat to the *AA... On April 23, 2015 10:17:51 AM EDT, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: Sorry, I know I get long-winded. That's why I don't post as much as I used to. ;-) On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I? :-) On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: It's amazing, really. Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective. Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats. I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well. The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet. As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
Sorry, I know I get long-winded. That's why I don't post as much as I used to. ;-) On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I? :-) On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: It's amazing, really. Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective. Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats. I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well. The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet. As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
It's amazing, really. Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective. Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats. I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well. The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet. As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I? :-) On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: It's amazing, really. Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective. Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats. I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well. The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet. As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274 -- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
- Original Message - From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. Frank From: James R Cutler [mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:51 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Frank, Are your measurements taken at the campus boundary or within the campus network? I remember the confusion when Centrex was first introduced at UMich. The statistic there that confounded was call durations wildly exceeding models, but mostly within the campus, not to the outside world. Could there be peer to peer traffic that you do not see? James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu On Mar 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com mailto:frnk...@iname.com wrote: The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity. Frank
Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content (was:Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality)
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote: What's a lawful web site? Paragraphs 304 and 305 in today's released RO address some of this. The wording 'Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content' is pretty good, and covers what the Commission wanted to cover.
RE: Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content (was:Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:48:31 -0400 From: lo...@pari.edu To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content (was:Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality) On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote: What's a lawful web site? Paragraphs 304 and 305 in today's released RO address some of this. The wording 'Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content' is pretty good, and covers what the Commission wanted to cover. More then website blocking I've been wondering what this means for spam prevention?
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. The mere fact that politics has become a guiding factor in Internet-related public policy is an indicator that we must tread cautiously. And, no, I do not think recent regulatory efforts have been suitably cautious. Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today. Kelly On 3/9/15, 10:55 AM, list_na...@bluerosetech.com list_na...@bluerosetech.com wrote: 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. *** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE *** This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged and confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message from your system. Thank you.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Mar 10, 2015, at 06:21 , Kelly Setzer kelly.set...@wnco.com 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 effects or are you just ranting because you don’t like government involvement? And, no, I do not think recent regulatory efforts have been suitably cautious. Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today. The rules are not unpublished, nor will they be unpublished when they are enacted. It’s true that the RO isn’t out yet, but the actual rules (47CFR8) are published. Nothing takes effect until the RO is published and due process is followed. I can accept that there may not have been sufficient caution, but your claim that the current process violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards simply does not apply. The FCC followed the NPRM process and accepted a wide variety of public comment (and actually seems to have listened to the public comment in this case). As near as I can tell, they bent over backwards to be far more inclusive in the process than is historically normal in the FCC NPRM process. I get that you don’t like the outcome, but I feel that your criticisms of the process reflect more of a lack of understanding of the normal federal rulemaking process than any substantive failure of that process. Owen
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 their bandwidth usage and that trying to build a system off of NNTP so that each broadband subscriber became in effect a Usenet server wouldn't work well without significant modifications. Third, if anyone cares the Usenet server we ran was news.america.net Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com /em shrug I can't help it if you don't like real world data. On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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 fault for not being clear and try to clarify. Apparently you prefer to be rude. *Plonk* -- -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*
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: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
Frank, Are your measurements taken at the campus boundary or within the campus network? I remember the confusion when Centrex was first introduced at UMich. The statistic there that confounded was call durations wildly exceeding models, but mostly within the campus, not to the outside world. Could there be peer to peer traffic that you do not see? James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu On Mar 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote: The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity. Frank signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity. Frank -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:57 PM To: Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] snip Averages hide the peak demands. The last mile should handle the peak demands. Further upstream you get the over subscription savings. Looking at averages and saying that they define the needs limits is *bad* engineering. For POTS you would get a few hertz if you did that. The averaging of POTS comes once you combine multiple sources together at the exchange. Even then you look at the peak periods not the daily average. Asymetry is pushing oversubscription too close to the consumer. It is a undesirable but sometimes necessary trade off. Asymetry traffic volumes don't mean asymetric speeds are desirable. snip Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives. I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their computer labs, open before classes start. Ice never heard of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day. Well kids will be kids. Very true :) Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time. This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making. Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8. The point is that a great percentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband connections. The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same reasons as WiFi. For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical. I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step. I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps. BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction. +10! If you would like to talk to other researchers poking deeply into these fronts, also equipped with large data sets and some rapidly evolving analysis tools, please talk to me offlist. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote: A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays. and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions. Honestly, if you dramatically improve uplink and downlink latencies by adopting fair queueing + aqm on the cpe and headend - even bittorrent becomes a lot less of a problem. Home networks get slower, but not unusable. Really thorough paper on this: http://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~drossi/paper/rossi14comnet-b.pdf While I do have some detailed data on torrent's behavior under fq_codel now, I haven't got it together enough to publish, (the above work is lagging behind). These days I basically just say that stuff in IW10 slow start (e.g. web traffic) punches (bittorrent) uTP traffic (no IW10) aside, the FQ bits in fq_codel make everything else work pretty well on low rate traffic like videoconferencing/voip/dns/web in general, the aqm bits keep overall queue links low on any fat flows, and the only major problem remain is torrent using IW10 over tcp inadvertently while competing with other single stream download/upload traffic. You get your edge device configured right, and you're golden, no matter how many darn geeky kids you have. http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014_05_01_archive.html Admittedly a little classification can help, on torrent, and I certainly regard the default number of peers (6-50) to be a bit much. You don't need to just believe me, please feel free to try what is in openwrt barrier breaker and chaos calmer. I never notice what the kids are doing on my link anymore, nor do they notice me. Nick -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote: Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. But In the bufferbloated era, your upload just trashed he network for everyone else on the link. https://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/bufferbloat-demonstration-videos/ On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays. Small businesses (currently) have it worse, if any of the users try to combine these things. Chuck -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote: A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays. and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions. Nick
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote: For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? For consumers to have choice, there must be an available alternative that is affordable.
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 sustained 60M down or 15M up on a single stream without a lot of difficulty. It does typically need both ends to be aware of window scaling, or you start to run up against the LFN problem, but other than that it's nothing beyond regular HTTP, FTP, SCP, CIFS, ... 15M upstream *utterly* transforms working from home where all the files I'm working on are on a remote file server. Autosave is no longer a cue for a 5-10 minute tea-break. Regards, Tim.
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 t...@pelican.org wrote: 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 sustained 60M down or 15M up on a single stream without a lot of difficulty. It does typically need both ends to be aware of window scaling, or you start to run up against the LFN problem, but other than that it's nothing beyond regular HTTP, FTP, SCP, CIFS, ... 15M upstream *utterly* transforms working from home where all the files I'm working on are on a remote file server. Autosave is no longer a cue for a 5-10 minute tea-break. Regards, Tim.
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 khe...@zcorum.com 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 b...@world.std.com 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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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*
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 b...@world.std.com wrote: Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you were asserting. From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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 b...@world.std.com 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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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*
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com /em shrug I can't help it if you don't like real world data. On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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 fault for not being clear and try to clarify. Apparently you prefer to be rude. *Plonk* -- -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*
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
In message camrdfrwreb_ne1zqg73v1jfxftgrppnnbiksd9wo8esek13...@mail.gmail.com , Scott Helms writes: I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives. I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their computer labs, open before classes start. Ice never heard of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day. Well now you have. See Edmodo. The kids all have accounts. The teachers all have accounts. The communication is all in the open, no private chats. Assignments are handed out and submitted with a timestamp over Edmodo. How many of you have submitted tax returns at 23:00 because you have been running late? Do you do this electronically now. Well kids will be kids. Very true :) Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time. This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making. Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8. The point is that a great percentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband connections. The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same reasons as WiFi. It is our job as engineers to give consumers what they need even if they don't realise they needed it. For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical. I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step. When you are running a nominally 400Mbps WiFi into 100Mbps fibre you do really want to be able to fill that pipe. I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps. Averages hide the peak demands. The last mile should handle the peak demands. Further upstream you get the over subscription savings. Looking at averages and saying that they define the needs limits is *bad* engineering. For POTS you would get a few hertz if you did that. The averaging of POTS comes once you combine multiple sources together at the exchange. Even then you look at the peak periods not the daily average. Asymetry is pushing oversubscription too close to the consumer. It is a undesirable but sometimes necessary trade off. Asymetry traffic volumes don't mean asymetric speeds are desirable. BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction. There are lots of places that need to fixed. You address all of them in parallel. There are enough engineers in the world to do that. Just because WiFi has issues doesn't mean the next link doesn't have issues as well. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org --089e010d8c2ae4b8c20510620314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable p dir=3Dltrbr gt;br gt; I don#39;t know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thum= bbr gt; drives./p p dir=3DltrI think he was trying to point out that most school librarie= s, and their computer labs, open before classes start.=C2=A0 Ice never hear= d of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if = you#39;re working on a paper at night it#39;s because it#39;s due the ne= xt day./p p dir=3Dltrgt;br gt; Well kids will be kids.br gt;/p p dir=3DltrVery true :)br/p p dir=3Dltrgt;br gt; Yep.=C2=A0 The assumption that because you are sending from home it is= br gt; not time critical is absolutely bogus.=C2=A0 Upstream speeds really ar= ebr gt; just as important as downstream speeds.=C2=A0 It just that it is notb= r gt; normally needed as much of the time./p p dir=3DltrThis assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are = making.=C2=A0 Forget about the access technology and it#39;s symmetry or a= symmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is= highly asymmetrical
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 03/02/2015 09:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter. That's what USB thumb drives and school/library computers are all about: if you don't have the moxie at home, find a better path. Of course, if the kid planned better, s/he wouldn't be in photo-finish hell. (And I speak as someone who regularly crowded deadlines in school.) More compelling is the argument of collaborative creation of PowerPoint slide stacks with lots of graphic elements with a geographically distributed group of people. Particularly if any of the information in the slides is company confidential. Better upstream speeds will speed the collaboration, particularly in the final stages. Text is fast; full-color graphics can be slow.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
imho this two staments are true: - tomorrow a new product or service on the Internet can completely change the ratio download/upload - most probably, this will not happen It may take a few days (hours for early adopters) for a new service to become popular on the Internet, that make a intensive use of upstream. This... so much can happens. But I would bet my fortune and my children's that it will not happen People do try to create this type of service/product. (like this one) http://www.codediesel.com/browser/opera-unite-a-web-server-in-your-browser/ -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 3/2/2015 11:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: If the network supported it this would be typical of a household with teenagers. People adapt their usage to the constraints presented. That doesn't mean they are necessarially happy with the constraints. Don't take lack of complaints as indicating people don't want things improved. As speed increases the importance of more speed decreases. We get to the point where thing happen fast enough. We also start to be limited by things other than link speed. Mark This. I'm moving considerably out into the country. Discussions about the uncertainty of what we'll be doing for broadband has given me a good insight to my son's expectations. At a minimum he needs the ability for his phone or computer to be able to send messages to his friends; and raise your hand if you believe he'll actually settle for that long term. However, this is not what he wants. He'd like to stream video/video skype more on his phone, but he has to make sure to stay under the plan's data limit. He'd like to host more gaming servers at the house (though he guesses he can settle for the DC based VPS server, but it's limited on supported games). He'd like to stream his games to twitch. He'd like to collaborate with others on his music. He'd like to mine crypto-currency (nothing to do with upload, but I'm not paying for it). As he's gotten older, he's wanted to do a lot more things. He is settling for what the bandwidth will allow him to do. He is finding ways around the limitations, but that does not mean he doesn't want more. I'd like to say that my son is special (He is! I'm his dad!), but in relation to this discussion he's an average teenager. Time moves on. We may not need symmetric bandwidth, but we definitely need much higher upload capacity and, if possible, we should consider how to make things more dynamic as we move forward. Software developers push what the majority can support. When there's enough people able to handle HD, they pump HD. When there is enough upload capacity, they'll develop more apps that utilize it. And if they can get away with developing p2p streaming to save their own costs on bandwidth, they WILL do it. After all, in the end, it's still about the money. Jack
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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Hey Barry - just to be clear, twasn't I who made the claim - I'm the one who asked for your input re. Scott's claim! With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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 most users' bandwidth profiles were massively asymmetric to start with so it made sense for consumers to have more bandwidth in one direction than another. How could they have known this before it was introduced? because we had modem banks before we had adsl. And you are asserting that studies were done on user behavior over dial-up modems in order to justify asymmetric service? Well, maybe there was some observation and conclusions from those observations that people tended to download more than they uploaded, it's not inherently hard to believe. I'd've had questions about how well 56kb theoretical max predicted behavior at ~10x higher speeds of *DSL. But whatever you work with what you have. I still think a lot of the motivation was to distinguish residential from commercial products. We are talking about a product sold by regional monopolies, right? I say that was prescriptive and a best guess that it'd be acceptable and a way to differentiate commercial from residential service. Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was symmetrical. Maybe they had some data on that usage but it'd be muddy just due to the low bandwidth they provided. maybe it was symmetric on your modems; it wasn't on the modems I managed. Bandwidth or usage? Are you changing the subject? I was talking about bandwidth, bandwidth on dial-up modems was symmetric or roughly symmetric (perhaps 53kbps down and 33kbps up was common, effectively.) Which is why I said residential SERVICE ... was symmetrical. 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? Because Class A/B/C/(D) was obviously wasteful and inflexible compared to CIDR so it caught on. Yes some were projecting an eventual IPv4 runout 20+ years ago, and IPv4 was a cost factor particularly if you were planning on deploying millions of clients tho not a killer. At any rate NAT played well into the hands of any company which wanted to distinguish a residential from commercial IP service, only a tiny per cent could see their way around a non-static address via DDNS etc. Sure. once it became institutionalized and the market got used to it why not sell tiered bandwidth services at different price points, but that could have been true of symmetrical service also. my point is simply that there is often more to asymmetric services than extracting more money from the customer. Ok fine. But don't present it as if it never crossed the minds of telcos and cablecos that asymmetric service, no static ips, etc distinguished residential from commercial service. They do include all that with commercial services, right? Well there are these small business commercial services particularly from cablecos which are hybrids, asymmetric bandwidth with static IPs etc. It was a challenge early on, the internet particularly in those days just didn't distinguish such thing as residential vs commercial, bits were bits, other than raw link speed perhaps and even then some were buying 9.6kbps and 56kbps nailed-up leased lines for $1,000+/month while others got that kind of speed over dial-up modems for $20/mo (plus POTS) and faster (128kbps) over ISDN for around $100/mo or less. A very early way to distinguish was idle-out, if you weren't sending traffic you were dropped either from dial-up or your ISDN link shut down or whatever. And someone sending at you didn't (unless you had some exotic set-up) bring the link back up. Some sites would just drop your link if you were logged in more than so many hours straight (trust me on that) to see if anyone was really there to log back in, automating that was way into the few per cent. I had an ethernet switch at home with a built-in 56kbps modem which would keep a dial-up link up, keep redialing if it lost it. In theory it should have worked, in practice it was crap. But that was probably more like 1997 when consumer products catering to this stuff really started hitting the market (other than just modems.) So you couldn't run always available servers from those kinds of services, not even an SMTP incoming server unless you adapted to that, after a few minutes idle you went offline. Some of that was resource conservation but a lot of it was to differentiate residential from commercial service. You want to run a server host it somewhere that sells that or buy an always up link (e.g., leased line.) To some extent this is six vs half a dozen. One reason commercial
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that? Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want? What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)? Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc. The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:40 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that? Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want? What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)? Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc. The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1. If you would see that as a win, I can personally guarantee you that you are in the minority among consumers. I, even as an advanced user know that overall, my usage pattern would suffer greatly if my 30/7 were converted to 18.5/18.5. (I’m on CMTS instead of ADSL, as all ADSL will do in my neighborhood is 1536/384 (on a good day)). Sure, my uploads would be faster, but that’s less than 1% of what I do and I’m almost never sitting there waiting for my upload to complete. When I upload something large, I pretty much do it as a fire-and-forget. I get notified if it fails and I use software/protocols for large files that are capable of resuming where they left off or recovering from failure with relatively minimal retransmission of previously transferred data. As such, while I’d much rather have 30Mbps of upstream data than 7, if I were given the choice between 30/30 vs. 53/7, I’s probably still choose 53/7. I agree that adaptive is a nice pipedream, but in the realm of reality, fixed is what is currently implemented and due to where the incentives currently reside, likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Owen
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
I don't usually chime in on the list, but since this seems to be another hot item, i'll pitch in my $0.005 (since the $$ has been going up these days). IIRC the entire reason we have asymmetry to begin with is because it was created to resolve an issue with older ADSL hardware. I believe the reason it gave such great benefits at the time of faster downloads while not so good downloads is because simply of the power used in each direction (it takes more power to send than receive delivering farther distances, etc). So in this sense, telecoms decided that if you wanted to use both sides of your connection, you're a Business Class user that needed to upload something with download like speeds. Then as cable operators see the telecom vendors charge for it in this very fashion, they decide it's a great idea to charge for it so that they can stay competitive (cable also had these issues but have long since been resolved). So it would seem that there ARE legitimate complaints from those who do not want to be in a Business Class service just because they want to have the ability to upload content just as they download content. Regardless of the amount, this is something that has been complained about for quite a long time. Times have changed, infrastructure _should_ be upgraded by now for major transport operators, Tier-1/2 carriers, all the way down to last mile (i realize many rural places being worked on). Asymmetry needs to die just like the equipment will, thus the non-sense charges, etc. The only ones still fighting for asymmetry in this conversation are the ones that stand to make money from it. Technical perspective says this is a non-issue and symmetry is how it works by default anywhere inside of Business Class. max On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote: Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. Chuck
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
In message 000101d05567$74b58530$5e208f90$@gmail.com, Chuck Church writes: Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Once you get over a certain threshold more download speed doesn't buy as much as more upload speed. For movies you want the data there before you need to display it. It really doesn't matter if it is 30 seconds before or 20 minutes before, you only consume the data so fast. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. If the network supported it this would be typical of a household with teenagers. People adapt their usage to the constraints presented. That doesn't mean they are necessarially happy with the constraints. Don't take lack of complaints as indicating people don't want things improved. As speed increases the importance of more speed decreases. We get to the point where thing happen fast enough. We also start to be limited by things other than link speed. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
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 internet in their pocket either. Then all of a sudden they were. And *poof*, down went Nokia and Motorola and Blackberry and others (anyone remember WAP?) who no doubt had reasoned very carefully and responsibly that would never happen, or not nearly at the pace it did. Surely they had no desire to fall from their respective perches or spend money needlessly. Give people a few sports scores and the weather etc on their phones and they'll be pretty happy. Of course there were also quite a few directions and predictions which failed, we tend to forget those. Such as that users would never stand for widespread CGN, ftp couldn't be made to work properly, etc etc etc. We still hear these predictions and to be honest they have my sympathy but I can't deny the reality of a present where the vast majority of users are NAT'd and seem reasonably satisfied. Predicting the past is much easier than predicting the future, no doubt about it. -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* On March 2, 2015 at 10:28 khe...@zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote: 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 increase is slower than the increase in downstream demand growth. In all cases but pure greenfield situations the cost of deploying DSL or DOCSIS is significant less than deploying fiber. Even in greenfield situations PON, which is a asynchronous itself, is much less expensive than active Ethernet. In short synchronous connections cost more to deploy. Doing so without a knowing if or when consumers will actually pay for synchronous connections isn't something we're going to do.
RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. Chuck
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
San Jose is most certainly not a pure coax network and is HFC. HSD does mean High Speed Data. On Mar 2, 2015 3:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC. Owen On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
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 mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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*
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 b...@world.std.com 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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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*
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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
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 dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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 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 true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto: dtay...@vocalabs.com 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. 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 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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
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 miss what they never had with their home Internet. At work, the story can be different because a business may well be spending the bucks for symmetrical service, or the applications in the business never go off-site.
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 true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com 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. 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 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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto: dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Hostnaming is not always straightforward, as there are variations of commercial service (some with static IPs, others with dynamic, some enterprise, branch office, SMB, etc.). FWIW: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net Are all SMB customers. -Jason On 3/2/15, 6:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
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 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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
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 khe...@zcorum.com 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 sells, it will be offered. It didn't. We offer symmetric DLS residentially and it went over like a lead balloon. Most people don't know what having a faster upstream would get them (symmetrical or not). Heck, most people only know that they got the cheapest connection with the fastest top-line bandwidth number because marketers don't know how to sell upstream bandwidth (or don't care to). -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
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 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 true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com 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. 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 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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
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: 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 dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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 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 true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com 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. 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 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 will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: 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: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Your point has been made here many times as has mine. There's enough upstream available on enough carriers that if there were some big upload unicorn out there waiting to be harnessed... they'd be able to do it. All that the consumer has ever had that could benefit is P2P and offsite backup. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk To: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 9:17:33 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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 with the expectation of reasonable upstream bandwidth. Average users haven't got into the mindset that they can use lots of upstream (because mainly, they can't.) Without really knowing what they could have, they're happy with what they've got. You've asked them if they're happy with the eggs, and in finding they were, declared nobody wanted for chicken. Aled
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 increase is slower than the increase in downstream demand growth. In all cases but pure greenfield situations the cost of deploying DSL or DOCSIS is significant less than deploying fiber. Even in greenfield situations PON, which is a asynchronous itself, is much less expensive than active Ethernet. In short synchronous connections cost more to deploy. Doing so without a knowing if or when consumers will actually pay for synchronous connections isn't something we're going to do.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com 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 with the expectation of reasonable upstream bandwidth. Average users haven't got into the mindset that they can use lots of upstream (because mainly, they can't.) Without really knowing what they could have, they're happy with what they've got. You've asked them if they're happy with the eggs, and in finding they were, declared nobody wanted for chicken. Aled
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount of time it takes to download content. This. Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL circuit at home, but it takes quite a bit of my time to upload that one file. Even if the average BW was throttled to 512k, it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. Cloud services are becoming the choice for all kinds of content distribution, and there are more content creators out there than you might think who need to do exactly what I need to do. Yes, I do remember the days of dialup, in particular I remember the quite interesting business model of free.org, which dramatically reduced my long distance bill that I had been paying to dial up Eskimo North (I'm in the Southeast US, incidentally). And then we got dialup locally, and my old Okidata 9600 modem got a workout. And, well, I still use my connection in much the same way as I used dialup, turning it off when I'm not using it. I almost never leave it up all night; if my router isn't online it can't be used for malicious purposes, etc. And, no, I have no alternatives to the ILEC's DSL here, as 3G/4G cell service simply doesn't get to my house (now on the ridge behind my house, great 4G bandwidth, but I'm down in a valley, and the shadowing algorithm's show the story; I ran a Splat simulation from the cell tower site; across the creek from my house is the edge of one of the diffraction zones where good service can be found, and my house is in a deep null) Thanks all for the interesting symmetry discussion; this has been enjoyable.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500 From: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org 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 b...@world.std.com 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 b...@world.std.com 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, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
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 commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial usage? Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. Not true. Asymmetric service was a response to users wanting more downstream bandwidth and willing to give up bandwidth upstream. It's simple math. A copper media supports so much bandwidth period. You can have that bandwidth in any direction you want and the users wanted it downstream. In our case at InterAccess Chicago, we offered SDSL to both residential and business customers. The distinction between business class and residential service was that business class came with public static addresses where that was an optional extra on residential service. There was also a acceptable usage agreement on the residential side about hosting high bandwidth commercial servers (which was not enforced unless an aggregious case occurred. It just turns out that most residential users found ADSL a better fit for what they did and I think in most cases that is still true. 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. Wrong again, the DSL was much faster than a dial up from the beginning. The original offering was SDSL with speeds ranging from about 128 kbit to 1.5 mbps which were much faster than any modem ever available. The other compelling thing about DSL was that it was an always on service that did not require you to have a phone line or ISDN line from the phone company that you paid for in addition to your ISP services. At the time, an ISDN circuit cost about $40 a month and there was about a 5 cent charge every time you dialed up a B channel. In our area there was not a per minute charge so it was to your advantage to leave your B channels nailed up. I remember customers running up thousands of dollars in calls when they misconfigured their equipment to dial on demand and racked up tons of calls. We originally offered SDSL at $80 per month at whatever speed we could get that line to run at (typically between 512K and 1.5 mbps) which was quite a bargin compared to the ISDN is replaced. Our focus was businesses but we offered residential service as well at $60 per month with private addresses. If I remember right, public IP addresses were a $10 a month option so you would hit the business price if you had more than two of them. As far as block services to residential users. We did block some ports toward the user to protect them from themselves. Especially port 25. Open mail relay was a huge issue back then so we default blocked it for residential users, however if you called support and asked it to be unblocked, we would give you the open relay caution and open it for you. If you spammed the world, you got dumped as a customer. In those days reputation matters and we tried to be good Internet cops when it came to abuse. When ADSL was originally offered we avoided it because most of our customers were businesses but we started losing business on the residential side because people would rather have the downstream bandwidth increase of the ADSL service. That is when we started offering the ADSL service targeted at residential users. We would have preferred doing all SDSL because then we would not have to dedicate card slots in the DSLAMs to two different services. It would have been much more efficient to be able to utilize every port on every slot rather than tie a card up with just a couple users. We did not really care which sold except that there is much less churn in business users so cost of provisioning is overall lower. The DSLAM backhaul was shared ATM circuits so the traffic was not any different to us other than the residential users hitting a NAT. If you wanted static addresses, they were always available. Free with business class service and an additional cost per public IP on the residential side. We had no problem with people having a web server at home on a residential service as long as it was not a huge commercial bandwidth hog. We adjusted the pricing of speeds and public address space in a way that made it more cost effective to buy the right service based on how you used the service. We really tried not to get into the business of policing the residential vs business class for three main reasons. 1. It was hard to do. Very labor intensive to try to monitor traffic. 2. The geeks beating up the residential service are also the early adopters and can be advocates for you if you
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: [...] Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else. There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes the documents public, which they haven't yet. The rules themselves are public. The area of uncertainty is whether the Report and Order will pull in more rules than just the newly published 47CFR§8. For instance, there's 47CFR§6 which deal with 'telecommunications' carriers and the ADA. But as far as net neutrality is concerned, the actual rules dealing with the gist of it are embodied in 47CFR§8 Preserving the Open Internet. Link to the eCFR page on it was posted elsewhere on the list.
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 this. So was I and my experience was different. We decided that it would be more profitable as a small ISP to re-sell Bell Canada's ADSL than to try to unbundle central offices all over the place. The arguments from the business side had nothing whatsoever to do with symmetry or lack thereof. The choice of technology was entirely by the ILEC. What I am trying to tell you is that Bell Canada was way behind the curve in deployment to DSL technology. I am coming to you from the perspective of a guy who designed and built DSL networks not a reseller. By the time the LEC started selling you ADSL, the market had already spoken and ADSL was the customer's choice. The LECs looked at what us facilities based ISPs deployed and decided to start reselling the same thing. If they had the demand to resell SDSL, they would have (and they do, it is called a clear channel DS-1 port). It just makes no difference to them, a loop and a port is just a loop and a port. To that I will just say that if your average user spend as much time videoconferencing as they do watching streaming media then they are probably a business. No, you misunderstand. I don't dispute that the area under end-user traffic statistics graphs is asymmetric. But that the maximum value -- particularly the instantaneous maximum value which you don't see with five minute sampling -- wants to be quite a lot higher than it can be with a very asymmetric circuit. If someone works from home one day a week and has a videoconference or too, we still want that to work well, right? The bottom line is that you have to tell me how much downstream speed you want to give up to get more upstream speed. If you don't want that then you are just telling me you want more overall speed which is a different argument. Videoconferencing is a red herring argument because it is also asymmetric in most cases and the bandwidth of a videoconference does not even come close to that of a movie download where quality matters more than lag. And perfect symmetry is not necessary. Would I notice the difference between 60/60 and 60/40 or even 60/20? Probably not really as long as both numbers are significantly more than the expected peak rate. But 24/1.5, a factor of 16, is a very different story. If you don't like the up to down ratio, I get it. The problem is you either need more intelligent networks to automatically set this ratio based on usage (which is not actually easy, remember RSVP anyone?) or you have to try to please most of the people most of the time which is how it works today. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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 average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. It is about whether data is being buffered waiting for a transmission window and is the buffer being cleared as fast as it is being filled. A network is engineered to support some average levels because it would be very cost ineffective to engineer a wide area network to support peak transmission on all ports at all times. All studies of network traffic show that it is not necessary to build a network that way. Our networks are statistical multiplexers in their design and have been all the way back to the Bell System. You do know that not everyone can make a phone call at once, right (but who would you call if everyone was already off hook, get it?)? In fact, it is such a difficult problem that it is very hard to support inside a single data center class Ethernet switch. In the wide area, it would be incredibly expensive to design an entirely non-blocking network at all traffic levels. It could be built if you want to pay for it however. Why is this so hard to understand? Mike Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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 instantaneous moment in time. What matters is average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. It is about whether data is being buffered waiting for a transmission window and is the buffer being cleared as fast as it is being filled. A network is engineered to support some average levels because it would be very cost ineffective to engineer a wide area network to support peak transmission on all ports at all times. All studies of network traffic show that it is not necessary to build a network that way. Our networks are statistical multiplexers in their design and have been all the way back to the Bell System. You do know that not everyone can make a phone call at once, right (but who would you call if everyone was already off hook, get it?)? In fact, it is such a difficult problem that it is very hard to support inside a single data center class Ethernet switch. In the wide area, it would be incredibly expensive to design an entirely non-blocking network at all traffic levels. It could be built if you want to pay for it however. ::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
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 download! I can't watch my movie! Jack These are not people a service provider can help because obviously these people don't know what they are talking about. My conversation would go more like this: Q. Your Hypothetical Poor User - Are you uploading? You're slowing down the download! I can't watch my movie! 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. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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 it reasonable to assume that users upload as much as they download when every traffic study I have ever done or seen tells me that is not the case? Is it reasonable for me to allocate my customers to 5M down/5M up when they really mostly use 8.5 down/1.5 up? I know it would make you happy to build my network so that you can twiddle the upload/download dials but is it reasonable to make all of my customers pay for that infrastructure rather than ask you to buy a more premium business class service if you want that? Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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 on the provider's behalf. And as I said earlier it's push/pull, give people lousy upload speeds and they won't use services which depend on good upload speeds. 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. OTOH, there are clever tricks you can play to reduce this. For instance, hash all every file before uploading, and if the server has seen that hash before (from another user, or from a previous run by the same user), the server just adds the to your collection of files available to restore--no second upload required. Yes, if you're the first person to backup a new version of Windows or a new movie torrent, your upload time is going to suck, but on average, the time to upload each new file will be close to zero. S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
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. What matters is average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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 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.
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 circuit at all. Buffer bloat is an issue in and of itself. I agree it can be an issue it just has nothing to do with the symmetry argument. In my opinion, it is just a reaction to customers who never want to see a packet lost but not understanding what the cost of that is. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a burst speed, it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Naslund, Steve wrote: That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? And that proves what? I expect people understand that large uploads take time, and don't call customer support to complain about something that comes with their grade of service. (Some of us DO, however call customer support when a promised 25mbps upload speed drops to 100kbps - which mine has been known to do - but that's something broken.) On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a burst speed, it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). Umm... maximum transfer speed is also dependent on how many people you're sharing a channel with (can you say PON?) and the traffic characteristics of the folks you're sharing a link with. So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. In my experience, you're absolutely wrong. People care most when something doesn't perform when they most need it. (By analogy, people suddenly find that they care a lot about how well there car accelerates, or brakes, primarily when they're trying to get out of a bad situation.) If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. No. My argument is that you're full of it when you equate peak with average performance. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC. Owen On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:25 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: In article 20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org you write: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
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 d...@virtualized.org wrote: On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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 nothing to do with address scarcity. Untrue. CIDR was created in response to the proliferation of class Cs being allocated instead of class Bs. The reason class Cs were being allocated instead of class Bs was due to projections (I believe by Frank Solensky and/or Noel Chiappa) that showed we would exhaust the Class B pool by 1990 or somesuch. This led to the ALE (Address Lifetime Extensions) and CIDRD working groups that pushed for the allocation of blocks of class Cs instead of Class Bs. CIDR also allowed for more appropriately sized blocks to be allocated instead of one-size-fits-most of class Bs. This increased address utilization which likely extended the life of the IPv4 free pool. Regards, -drc
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try to send mail directly since you're sharing your IP range with the usual array of botted Windows boxes and hacked Wordpress servers, so recipients are unlikely to accept it. R's, John
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 nothing to do with address scarcity. CIDR was invented for routing table slot scarcity in Cisco AGS hardware of the era. nope sorry, both are justifications... https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1519#page-6 There are not according to 1993 era RFC's, enough class B and A networks to go around... (there still aren't) We were around then and we got the patch. Routers running out of BGP table space wasn’t just a fear at the time, it was a real problem on a number of networks, including, but not limited to SPRINT and MCI who were the big dogs in the fight at the time. your cisco ags+ wasn't going to make it over the hump. NAT, OTOH, is an address conservation mechanism which has unfortunately of late been mistaken for a security tool. If only people would realize how much NAT negatively impacts security, manageability, etc. Owen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
In article 20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org you write: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. R's, John
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. R's, John Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. I still keep hoping for some way to buy an ipv6/48 from them. Being dynamically renumbered all the time is a PITA, and yet, when comcast's ipv6 works - it is GREAT. I had huge amounts of nat pressure from dns traffic simply vanish once I switched my dns servers over to their ipv6 (and deployed dnssec and got back NXDOMAIN) Owen -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Mar 1, 2015, at 17:58 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try to send mail directly since you're sharing your IP range with the usual array of botted Windows boxes and hacked Wordpress servers, so recipients are unlikely to accept it. R's, John I don’t disagree. I use static IPs, I just don’t get them from Comcast. I use Comcast as an L2 substrate for my GRE tunnels where I run BGP with my real providers. Owen
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 lot more stuff from other people than from you. Unless you expect every server to connect directly to every other server, you're going to end up with a small set of well connected servers that feed stub servers and send way more than they receive, and the stubs that receive way more than they send. I have run usenet servers pretty much continuously for over 20 years, and Usenet has always been like that. R's, John
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 invented for routing table slot scarcity in Cisco AGS hardware of the era. Routers running out of BGP table space wasn’t just a fear at the time, it was a real problem on a number of networks, including, but not limited to SPRINT and MCI who were the big dogs in the fight at the time. NAT, OTOH, is an address conservation mechanism which has unfortunately of late been mistaken for a security tool. If only people would realize how much NAT negatively impacts security, manageability, etc. Owen
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 little files and the backup program uses incremental backup, a slow upload rate shouldn't be all that painful. Video editors need to look at local-network solutions for their backup, at least until upload rates increase by a factor of 10 or better. It just hit me: when one has just a hammer in his toolbox everything starts to look like nails. Network-based storage could just be one of those.
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 little files and the backup program uses incremental backup, a slow upload rate shouldn't be all that painful. Video editors need to look at local-network solutions for their backup, at least until upload rates increase by a factor of 10 or better. It just hit me: when one has just a hammer in his toolbox everything starts to look like nails. Network-based storage could just be one of those. That was probably true back when Ethernet was 10Mbps ... let's say 1992. But then along came 100Mbps in 1995, and 1GbE in 1999, and then 10GbE in 2002. In the period of 10 years, the technology became 1000x faster. I don't buy that network-based storage could just be one of those. Just because the broadband networks we have today aren't up to the task doesn't make this a reasonable point. Remember that the National Information Infrastructure was supposed to deliver 45Mbps symmetric connections to the end user back in the '90's, a visionary goal but one that was ultimately subverted in the name of telco profits. http://it.tmcnet.com/topics/it/articles/70379-net-that-got-away.htm ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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 the head-end, i.e. the T1/E1 handoff to the ISP. The upstream from the subscriber didn't have a clean interface so was still using 33.6k. 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. It's a chicken and egg situation - of course the average consumer today will say they don't need symmetric, but you could have asked them twenty years ago and they'd have said they didn't need the Internet at all. Or smartphones. This all suits the telcos and cablecos very nicely - they are happy when their customers are passive consumers of paid content and services. It gives them control. I don't think it's a conspiracy, but it suits the big players not to fix the problem since they don't perceive it as being one. Aled
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote: Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 50.130.64.172 c-50-130-64-172.hsd1.tn.comcast.net 50.162.220.128 c-50-162-220-128.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 50.165.94.164 c-50-165-94-164.hsd1.il.comcast.net 50.165.121.16 c-50-165-121-16.hsd1.in.comcast.net 68.56.178.193 c-68-56-178-193.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 71.229.180.119 c-71-229-180-119.hsd1.co.comcast.net 71.234.26.63c-71-234-26-63.hsd1.ct.comcast.net 73.47.106.185 c-73-47-106-185.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 73.163.27.108 c-73-163-27-108.hsd1.dc.comcast.net 73.171.39.246 c-73-171-39-246.hsd1.va.comcast.net 73.198.24.166 c-73-198-24-166.hsd1.nj.comcast.net 75.67.200.133 c-75-67-200-133.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 76.30.102.104 c-76-30-102-104.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 76.116.249.169 c-76-116-249-169.hsd1.nj.comcast.net 98.194.102.63 c-98-194-102-63.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 98.196.186.124 c-98-196-186-124.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 98.229.88.228 c-98-229-88-228.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 98.233.42.2 c-98-233-42-2.hsd1.md.comcast.net 98.242.32.247 c-98-242-32-247.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 107.5.40.153c-107-5-40-153.hsd1.mi.comcast.net 174.59.200.13 c-174-59-200-13.hsd1.pa.comcast.net And Time-Warner customers: 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com 24.29.64.79 cpe-24-29-64-79.nycap.res.rr.com 24.59.66.78 cpe-24-59-66-78.twcny.res.rr.com 24.88.94.165cpe-024-088-094-165.sc.res.rr.com 24.90.21.156cpe-24-90-21-156.nyc.res.rr.com 24.163.27.190 cpe-024-163-027-190.triad.res.rr.com 24.163.91.145 cpe-024-163-091-145.nc.res.rr.com 24.164.150.4cpe-24-164-150-4.si.res.rr.com 24.165.29.203 cpe-24-165-29-203.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.193.228.223 cpe-24-193-228-223.nyc.res.rr.com 65.191.116.113 cpe-065-191-116-113.nc.res.rr.com 66.75.15.251cpe-66-75-15-251.san.res.rr.com 66.108.180.35 cpe-66-108-180-35.nyc.res.rr.com 67.11.76.246cpe-67-11-76-246.rgv.res.rr.com 67.246.130.165 cpe-67-246-130-165.stny.res.rr.com 67.252.31.129 cpe-67-252-31-129.nycap.res.rr.com 68.207.225.95 95-225.207-68.tampabay.res.rr.com 68.207.226.177 177-226.207-68.tampabay.res.rr.com 70.92.2.220 cpe-70-92-2-220.wi.res.rr.com 70.92.13.93 cpe-70-92-13-93.wi.res.rr.com 70.124.120.145 cpe-70-124-120-145.stx.res.rr.com 71.65.225.141 cpe-071-065-225-141.nc.res.rr.com 71.72.101.199 cpe-71-72-101-199.columbus.res.rr.com 72.131.3.138cpe-72-131-3-138.wi.res.rr.com 72.133.60.75cpe-72-133-60-75.new.res.rr.com 72.181.54.177 cpe-72-181-54-177.rgv.res.rr.com 72.181.88.187 cpe-72-181-88-187.stx.res.rr.com 72.225.154.15 cpe-72-225-154-15.nj.res.rr.com 72.227.137.8cpe-72-227-137-8.nyc.res.rr.com 74.137.19.108 cpe-74-137-19-108.swo.res.rr.com 74.138.245.76 cpe-74-138-245-76.swo.res.rr.com 75.179.4.175cpe-75-179-4-175.neo.res.rr.com 75.191.230.203 cpe-075-191-230-203.ec.res.rr.com 76.170.88.22cpe-76-170-88-22.socal.res.rr.com 98.30.172.37cpe-98-30-172-37.woh.res.rr.com 104.229.55.248 cpe-104-229-55-248.rochester.res.rr.com 107.15.246.227 cpe-107-015-246-227.nc.res.rr.com 107.184.5.61cpe-107-184-5-61.socal.res.rr.com 108.183.132.10 cpe-108-183-132-10.maine.res.rr.com 142.105.47.206 cpe-142-105-47-206.nj.res.rr.com 142.136.44.21 cpe-142-136-44-21.socal.res.rr.com 172.248.255.13 cpe-172-248-255-13.socal.res.rr.com 173.172.110.208 cpe-173-172-110-208.kc.res.rr.com 173.172.209.8 cpe-173-172-209-8.elp.res.rr.com 174.97.185.69 cpe-174-097-185-069.nc.res.rr.com 174.98.86.73cpe-174-098-086-073.triad.res.rr.com 184.57.187.144 cpe-184-57-187-144.cinci.res.rr.com 198.72.234.76 cpe-198-72-234-76.socal.res.rr.com 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com And Charter customers: 24.107.177.229 24-107-177-229.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 24.179.114.97 24-179-114-97.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com 24.181.102.209 24-181-102-209.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com 24.216.108.175 24-216-108-175.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com 24.216.126.30 24-216-126-30.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com
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 not that PON shit. The real stuff or bust. Yeah. Then they complain when a tornado wipes out their power and they can't make a phone call. Given the state of the partially deregulated phone system and people tending to depend on DECT phones, that is a non-dividing issue, in a lot of cases. Me, I keep a landline with a rotary phone. It's hard to get DSL in some places in the country. Fiber? ha! The current state of the affairs in rural / semi-rural USA is not the standard we should strive for. Focusing too hard on the limitations appearing as inherent to the casual observer will choke developement. We can look at that techno-echonomical situation and use it as a starting point, but nothing else. (were I more of an entreprenour I'd look at no DSL available as a golden opportunity to get lots of fibre customers. Not replacing copper but augmenting it also solves the distress problem. That or a 12V battery to power the Ethernet converter and the ATA Box.) -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Well, I'm a classic ANAL RETENTIVE!! And I'm looking for a way to VICARIOUSLY experience some reason to LIVE!! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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 network they were overlaying this new service on top of. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com 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 b...@world.std.com 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*
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 network would consist of home servers running NNTP - and I expect the traffic would be very symmetric. (For that matter, with a few tweaks, the USENET model would be great for groupware - anybody remember the Netscape communications server that added private newsgroups and authentication to the mix?) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. R's, John
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run mail servers from their locations. The list of IPs certainly looked commercial. Jason
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers. Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. R's, John Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. Owen
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
In article 54f3d78a.5080...@satchell.net you write: On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there aren't more that do. The tiny telco owned DSL ISP here gives you a static IP if you call them up and ask for one. Otherwise you're double-NAT-ed. I switched to cable since their top speed was 6 megabits, even through I'm two blocks from the CO. They said I can have fiber if I pay for them to string it from the CO to my house. Uh, no. R's, John
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/01/2015 01:44 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links. Correct as far as Charter goes. Particularly for people with dedicated IP addresses, as I do. I can't speak for DHCP address space.
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 by definition have more outgoing than incoming given the nature of a protocol where messages are flooded by senders. this is widely reflected in freenix 1000 rankings. http://top1000.anthologeek.net/ likewise if you are and edge you will undoubtedly receive more than you originate. Miles Fidelman Scott Helms 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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 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 network would consist of home servers running NNTP - and I expect the traffic would be very symmetric. (For that matter, with a few tweaks, the USENET model would be great for groupware - anybody remember the Netscape communications server that added private newsgroups and authentication to the mix?) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there aren't more that do.
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 original content and how long individual servers choose (and have the disk) to keep specific content. It was never designed to have as many server nodes as you're describing and I'd imagine there's some nasty side effects if we tried get that many active servers going as we have customers. On Mar 1, 2015 10:25 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net 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? Miles Fidelman Scott Helms 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. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 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 network would consist of home servers running NNTP - and I expect the traffic would be very symmetric. (For that matter, with a few tweaks, the USENET model would be great for groupware - anybody remember the Netscape communications server that added private newsgroups and authentication to the mix?) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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 m...@mtcc.com mailto:m...@mtcc.com 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 b...@world.std.com mailto:b...@world.std.com 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*
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote: You mean CableLabs? Yes. Mike On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote: On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Michael, Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good enough for OTT Being at Packetcable at the time? Mike On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote: 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 m...@mtcc.com mailto:m...@mtcc.com 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 na...@ics-il.net mailto:na...@ics-il.net 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 clay...@mnsi.net mailto:clay...@mnsi.net To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com mailto:b...@world.std.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org 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 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 b...@world.std.com mailto:b...@world.std.com wrote: Can we stop the disingenuity? Asymmetric service was introduced
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 same time we'd have to replace all of the modems, set top boxes, TV tuners embedded in TV sets, CableCards, and CMTS blades. They were already changing all of that due to the switch from analog. The MSO's had complete control over what the hardware specs looked like. Since they were actively hostile to servers, and wanted to reproduce the telco revenue model (which were at some level linked), the upstream being a limited resource became a feature, not a bug. Had the MSO's wanted a better upstream, all they had to do was ask. Mike
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 mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 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 network would consist of home servers running NNTP - and I expect the traffic would be very symmetric. (For that matter, with a few tweaks, the USENET model would be great for groupware - anybody remember the Netscape communications server that added private newsgroups and authentication to the mix?) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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 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 mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: 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 network would consist of home servers running NNTP - and I expect the traffic would be very symmetric. (For that matter, with a few tweaks, the USENET model would be great for groupware - anybody remember the Netscape communications server that added private newsgroups and authentication to the mix?) Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
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 it made sense for consumers to have more bandwidth in one direction than another. How could they have known this before it was introduced? because we had modem banks before we had adsl. I say that was prescriptive and a best guess that it'd be acceptable and a way to differentiate commercial from residential service. Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was symmetrical. Maybe they had some data on that usage but it'd be muddy just due to the low bandwidth they provided. maybe it was symmetric on your modems; it wasn't on the modems I managed. Another still was that cross-talk causes enough interference to prevent reverse adsl (i.e. greater bandwidth from customer to exchange) from working well. So SDSL didn't exist? SDSL generally maxes out at 2mbit/s and can be run near adsl without causing problems, but that's not what I was talking about. If you were to run a 24:1 adsl service with the dslam at the customer side, it will cause cross-talk problems at the exchange end and that would trash bandwidth for other adsl users in the exchange-customer direction. Anyhow, *DSL is falling so far behind it's difficult to analyze what could have been. not really no. Spectral analysis is clear on efficiency measurement - we know the upper limits on spectral efficiency due to Shannon's law. As were bandwidth caps. Bandwidth caps were introduced in many cases to stop gratuitous abuse of service by the 1% of users who persistently ran their links at a rate that the pricing model they selected was not designed to handle. You've been around the block a bit so I'm sure you remember the days when transit was expensive and a major cost factor in running an isp. 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? Sure. once it became institutionalized and the market got used to it why not sell tiered bandwidth services at different price points, but that could have been true of symmetrical service also. my point is simply that there is often more to asymmetric services than extracting more money from the customer. Nick
