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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
/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
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
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 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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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:
.
-
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
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
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
...@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
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
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
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
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
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!
::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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
@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
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
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
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
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
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
...@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
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 wrote:
Can we stop
On 03/01/2015 05:08 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be designed to work
on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver cable TV. It's not some
conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business services - it was a
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
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
-
From: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net
To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
Cc: NANOG 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
On 3/1/2015 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They didn't want to give channels for internet bandwidth either. Life
would have been
*far* more simple had the MSO's not *forced* the hardware designer to
use their crappy
noisy back channel, such as it was. The move from analog -- which was
I am not normally, willingly, on nanog. My emailbox is full enough. I
am responding, mostly, to a post I saw last night, where the author
complained about the horrid performance he got when attempting a
simultaneous up and download on a X/512k upload DSL link.
That is so totally fixable now, at
On 28/Feb/15 10:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
Competition? What competition? I realize you’re not in the US,...
Yes, I know competition in the U.S. is not where it ought to be :-).
My comment was more global, as we all use the same technologies around
the world, even though you do get varying levels
On Feb 27, 2015, at 22:23 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat
justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.
I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the
On Feb 28, 2015, at 01:22 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On 28/Feb/15 10:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
Competition? What competition? I realize you’re not in the US,...
Yes, I know competition in the U.S. is not where it ought to be :-).
My comment was more global, as we all use
On 28/Feb/15 11:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
This is where I disagree with you.
Look at it this way… I bet even you consume far more content than you
produce. Everyone does. It is the nature of any one to many relationship.
You are assuming that I am the one, personally, producing that content.
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 02/27/2015 02:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
What is that statement based on? I have not seen any outcry for more
symmetric speeds. Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of
engineering issues and if it were up to the carriers, we would much
rather have more
On 02/27/2015 04:11 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
(replying to a few different points by different people):
In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the =
time. Do I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I =
had more downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be =
comfortable most of
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:24:17 +, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
said:
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
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 wrote:
Can we stop the disingenuity?
Asymmetric
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
on the provider's behalf.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net
To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 5:14:18 PM
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy
On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net wrote:
The question is, if YOU paid for the fiber to be run to their ped, would they
hook you up?
No. But that's because they are using the fibre pedestals to deliver a high
bandwidth DSL service. The condo customers still
I'm always a little suspicious when this is all customers want is a
cover for this is all customers will get.
It's like the time I was tossed from a local all you can eat buffet
(in the days of my admittedly huge appetite) the owner telling me yes,
that is *ALL* you can eat, goodbye!
On 2/28/2015 4:38 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Can we stop the disingenuity?
Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
deploying commercial services. As were bandwidth caps.
Hmm, at one point I was going to ask if anyone else remembered a long
time ago ISPs having something in
To: Lamar Owen
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what
it potentially means in the long term... besides what they state that
they intend to do with this new authority they've appointed
It's not about that's all they need, that's all they want, etc.
Whenever any vendor spouts this is what our customers want you know they are
talking pure bullshit. The only customers who know what they want are the
microscopic percentage who know what's actually possible, and we are dismissed
On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
So did I. Also, do you recall that the FCC changed the definition of
broadband to require 25 Mbps downstream? Does this mean that all
these rules on broadband don't apply to people providing Internet
access service on classic ADSL?
The FCC
: 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
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
...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 14:02
To: Lamar Owen
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what
it potentially means in the long term... besides what
On 2/28/2015 6:17 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
Mind you, the truly annoying part of this story (for me) is knowing
Telus has fibre pedestals not a block away, with enough bandwidth to
serve up IPTV to all the condos in the neighbourhood. But I'm in the
marina across the street. Since there are
On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:29 , Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining it in,
and (b) the potential abuse and 4th amendment violations, not just today's
foot in the door details!
How
On February 27, 2015 at 14:50 khe...@zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote:
I am absolutely not against good upstream rates! I do have a problem with
people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply
because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet.
It's
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
- Original Message -
From: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net
To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com
Cc: NANOG 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
and no one knows why.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Rob McEwen
Sent: Saturday, 28 February, 2015 12:30
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 2/28/2015 1:48 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
The bigger picture
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
If they wanted to shape DOCSIS to have better upstream,
all they had to say is JUMP to cablelabs and the vendors
and it would have happened.
Like DOCSIS 3.1? If I recall correctly, theoretical
upstream up to 2.5gb/s.
In the same way, I don't like the BASIS for this authority... and what it
potentially means in the long term... besides what they state that they
intend to do with this new authority they've appointed themselves in the
short term.
Had some people not apparently taken advantage of the
Back in the USENET days we advertised that we carried acccess to all
USENET groups.
One day a customer called asking to speak to me and said he'd like to
complain, we did NOT carry all USENET groups.
I said ok which don't we carry, mistakes are possible, I'll add them.
He got cagey.
I said
On 02/28/2015 02:38 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Can we stop the disingenuity?
Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
deploying commercial services. As were bandwidth caps.
Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth.
That's exactly how I remember why we
On 28/02/2015 22:38, Barry Shein wrote:
Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
deploying commercial services.
there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was
commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively
asymmetric to
Steve,
My point is that for lots and lots of people their uplink is not so low.
Even when I look at users with 25/25 and 50/50, many of the have been at
those rates for 3 years we don't see changes in traffic patterns nor
satisfaction as compared to users at similar download rates but lower
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
From 47CFR§8.5b
(b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
network management; nor shall
On 02/28/2015 02:29 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet,
nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly
just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those
years, right?
Having authority and choosing to
On 02/27/2015 02:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 2/27/2015 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
You really should read 47CFR§8. It won't take you more than an hour
or so, as it's only about 8 pages.
The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining
it in, and (b) the potential abuse
Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/28/2015 10:28 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Steve,
My point is that for lots and lots of people their uplink is not so
low.
Even when I look at users with 25/25 and 50/50, many of the have been at
those rates for 3 years we don't see changes in traffic patterns nor
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
