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 Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today.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 Enacting unpublished rules violates the spirit and history of open design, open discussion, and open standards that have made the Internet what it is today. The rules are not unpublished, nor will they be unpublished when they are enacted.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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 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 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 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 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
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, Michael Thomas 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 fact of RF technology and the architecture of the network they were overlaying this new service on top of. 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 happening around the same time -- pretty much negated that reason, but by then they had a bunch more reasons why they thought slow upstream was great for business. Mike
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 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
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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. We'd also have to change the protocol in significant ways. Deal with many more, and more complicated, ingress and egress problems. We'd also create FEX and NEX problems that we don't have today. On Mar 1, 2015 11:04 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: 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 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 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
You mean CableLabs? On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, Michael Thomas 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 happening around the same time -- pretty much negated that reason, but by then they had a bunch more reasons why they thought slow upstream was great for business. To be fair, because of the size of their loops when they went data, they needed as much download as they could put on the wire and even then we listened to complaints of the too many customers on a cable loop for years. Of course, some cable companies shorted their loops and didn't have saturation problems on the loop side. You'd have to ask them how much excess they have during peak that would allow for higher upstreams without sacrificing producing downstream. DSL standards were all over the place, and most models make sense if you take into account what they need for a downstream. This is true for ADSL2+ even, given that it is also used for video and the extra downstream takes that into account more than anything. There are annexes that have higher upstreams, but the vendor support on them is limited. This is why I always argue that standards should cease to look at static allocations and support variable with both default starting rates and cap rates depending on what the provider needs. Even if we went with a longer term adjustment scheme, it would still be better; so your 1.5mb/s upstream eventually shifts to a 10mb/s upstream because you are actively using it. Simple user controls would be nice (if both are being saturated, allow for balance at symmetric, or downstream is greedy; only give upstream if downstream isn't saturated). I don't design these things, don't have the time for it, so I won't overtax my brain actually trying to design it. However, given the work on GMPLS, I suspect it's very probable that we could have something highly variable based on demand. Wasting timeslots/frequencies in technology is still waste. KISS is only better then the solution meets needs. Over the years, I've found that we have made things a lot more complex to deal with needs. This is just another area that could use some of that complexity. It also removes a lot of the need for annexes which generally weren't all supported in a vendor product anyways. Jack
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 speeds below 60mbit, with any old cast off home router that I had to reply... Honestly I had assumed that everyone here has the chops to fix their own networks (home and business), in circumstances of high latency under load caused by bufferbloat - *by now* - and I hadn't spent any time on this list at all. A DSL product, running openwrt, made in australia, - was the first DSL device to get the excess buffering in the DSL driver ripped out and fq_codel tested. I was over at David Woodhouse's house in England while he fixed it - which was at LEAST 3 years ago. And he's been running it with openwrt and those fixes ever since. The name began with a T, it was a geode, I can't remember the name of it now. These were the results we got on DSL on an old modem that supported pause frames: http://planet.ipfire.org/post/ipfire-2-13-tech-preview-fighting-bufferbloat These are the improvements in bandwidth and latency under load - in both directions - we commonly get on cable modems, using the sqm-scripts now in openwrt and working on any linux box you care to use. http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/jimreisert/results.html http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blast.html Probably the shortest talk I have ever given on these topics (23 minutes long) was at uknof here, where in particular, I demoed the improvements in web load time that are now possible. 2 years ago. https://plus.google.com/u/0/103994842436128003171/posts/Kpogana4pze See also: https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/bufferbloat And recently I gave much longer talk, which FINALLY includes some bits on how we intend to now focus on *vastly improving wifi*, at nznog, which starts at 2:05 on friday morning here: http://new.livestream.com/i-filmservices/NZNOG2015/videos/75358960 I am tired of looking at myself, and I have to say that the talk before mine was WONDERFUL - the guy went into all sorts of new ways to find latency events, and filter out any false positives and provide new kinds of alerts to operators. And the talk after, from cloudflare, depressing as hell. I will gladly give another bloat talk to nannogers if that helps at some future conference, but jeeze, this stuff is so easy to fix now, and everyone involved is tired of repeating themselves, especially me. but since I haven't ranted here yet... and only intend to do this once, here I go ... Since being developed, the core BQL and fq_codel code has become fully available in every linux distribution I know of. The most advanced versions of it are in the sqm-scripts that are part of the openwrt chaos calmer work - notably - unlike every other shaper I know of, it can correctly compensate for PPPoe and DSL framing problems, and it automatically handles the problems that codel has on links below 2.5Mbits. We worked for over a year to get that right - fixed all the bugs in htb, mainlined and made available for free how to do it all right, as of Linux 3.10.12 and later, and all that logic is in those sqm-scripts - which work best on openwrt but also work on any linux distro with a couple tweaks. (and since then we have worked to pour it all into C with even simpler configuratiojn, that work is not done yet, please feel free to come help). So anyone here, with a spare 60-90 bucks, 5 minutes, and the right re-flashable router no longer has cause to complain about high jitter and latency, even on the slowest and most asymmetric links at home, or in their businesses. Benchmarks of the fq portion of fq_codel show it as better than sfq, and the codel portion, way better than RED. It helps of course, to do valid benchmarking of the real problems in your links - in your switches - and in your routers - at nanog scales - so we have developed a suite of tests you can use called rrul real time response under load - available for free as part of netperf-wrappers - https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper The server for which works on everything (netperf is very portable), and the test client driver, analysis tools and gui, work on any linux system and can be made to work on OSX via macports (I was unsuccessful at brew). The data it collects is your own, and aggregatable, and you don't need to share it with anyone if you don't want to. I would certainly like it, if after evaluating and then fixing bits of your own network that way, that anyone doing so, would volunteer to go fix two other networks, and get the people running those networks to go fix two other networks, each, and so on. And of course, feel free to nag and publicly embarrass those providing busted, bloated CPE, DSLAMS, BRAMS, and CMTSes, etc to actually deploy this stuff on their side, so we
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 of market conditions as such. so perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius. I am based in South Africa, which isn't saying much. The .mu domain throws everyone off :-). There is no such thing in the US. It’s oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst. We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in infrastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form an effective monopoly on services. I'll continue to postpone my immigration to those unions :-). The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessarily defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on symmetrical technologies. That’s sort of inherent in the fact that asymmetrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and lower upstream speeds. I agree. My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation where the downstream is faster than the upstream is not inappropriate for the vast majority of content consumers. The problem is that in most cases, consumers are not given adequate upstream bandwidth, regardless of the size of their downstream bandwidth. This is where I disagree, because we are making the case for (the vast majority of) customers based on the technologies they/we have always used. We have seen what can happen to GSM networks when you put a smartphone in the hands of an ordinary Jane. Not even the mobile operators saw that one coming. Let us open up the uplink pipes and see what happens. If we keep on thinking that the patterns will always be the way they are today, the patterns will always be the way they are today. If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I’m betting you would be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. Even if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast majority of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I’m pretty upstream-heavy for the average residential user. Yes! I would be very happy with that if it were reasonably reliable, or degraded in a way that would at least leave me reasonably happy. Symmetric circuits significantly reduce the likelihood of degradation on the uplink more than asymmetric circuits do. So an asymmetric service on a symmetric network is more likely to perform better than any service on an asymmetric network. Ultimately, that is my point. Mark.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 home. I’d love to have everyone have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream. However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest. 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 the time today would be 100M/30M. Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL, GPON, e.t.c. If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the uplink is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the issue is a non-starter. Competition? What competition? I realize you’re not in the US, so perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius. There is no such thing in the US. It’s oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst. We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in infrastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form an effective monopoly on services. You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) reasonable bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes a choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would ask, What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON? YMM will really V, of course. Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward) performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network operator runs it. The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessarily defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on symmetrical technologies. That’s sort of inherent in the fact that asymmetrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and lower upstream speeds. My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation where the downstream is faster than the upstream is not inappropriate for the vast majority of content consumers. The problem is that in most cases, consumers are not given adequate upstream bandwidth, regardless of the size of their downstream bandwidth. If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I’m betting you would be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. Even if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast majority of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I’m pretty upstream-heavy for the average residential user. Owen
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 the same technologies around the world, even though you do get varying levels of market conditions as such. so perhaps there is some form of meaningful competition in Mauritius. I am based in South Africa, which isn't saying much. The .mu domain throws everyone off :-). There is no such thing in the US. It’s oligopolies at best and monopolies at worst. We have, unfortunately, allowed the natural monopoly that exists in infrastructure (layer 1) to be leveraged by private enterprise to form an effective monopoly on services. I'll continue to postpone my immigration to those unions :-). The point here is that adequate up and adequate down are not necessarily defined by having them be equal. Yes, you get better uplink speeds on symmetrical technologies. That’s sort of inherent in the fact that asymmetrical technologies are all built for higher downstream speeds and lower upstream speeds. I agree. My point is that in the vast majority of cases, a hardware limitation where the downstream is faster than the upstream is not inappropriate for the vast majority of content consumers. The problem is that in most cases, consumers are not given adequate upstream bandwidth, regardless of the size of their downstream bandwidth. This is where I disagree, because we are making the case for (the vast majority of) customers based on the technologies they/we have always used. 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. We consume content from many sources. We are but one source of content. Even if everyone produced the same amount of content, mathematically, you’d be consuming more than you are producing if everyone consumed everything. If you have an example of any concept of an application where an end-user is likely to need the same amount of bandwidth upstream as they do downstream, I’m all ears. Your first example utterly failed. Do you have a better example to offer? We have seen what can happen to GSM networks when you put a smartphone in the hands of an ordinary Jane. Not even the mobile operators saw that one coming. Even phones consume asymmetrically and almost entirely down-stream. Let us open up the uplink pipes and see what happens. If we keep on thinking that the patterns will always be the way they are today, the patterns will always be the way they are today. I’m all for bigger uplink pipes, but insisting on symmetry is absurd. If you had a good solid 256Mbps up and 1Gbps down, I’m betting you would be a lot less upset about the asymmetrical nature of the circuit. Even if you continued to complain, I think you will admit that the vast majority of users would be quite happy. I know I would and I’m pretty upstream-heavy for the average residential user. Yes! I would be very happy with that if it were reasonably reliable, or degraded in a way that would at least leave me reasonably happy. Not sure what you mean by “degraded in a way that would make you happy”. Symmetric circuits significantly reduce the likelihood of degradation on the uplink more than asymmetric circuits do. So an asymmetric service on a symmetric network is more likely to perform better than any service on an asymmetric network. Ultimately, that is my point. This makes no sense whatsoever. Owen
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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. In the future, if the uplink is large enough, it may be our devices doing the producing, and not the humans who own them. Is that feasible? Certainly. Is it happening now? Not nearly enough, even if the tech. is already there. Between humans and devices, there could be an equilibrium between production and consumption. It's hard to say. My point is, let's not use yesterday's assumptions for today's or tomorrow's movement. Almost everything else has moved on (or is moving on). But I won't labour the point so much. In my part of the world, we are deploying fibre into areas and customers that have been traditionally served by asymmetric bandwidth. So in a couple of months or years, I'll be able to tell you what effect that has had on eye-ball patterns. Nothing like experience... If you have an example of any concept of an application where an end-user is likely to need the same amount of bandwidth upstream as they do downstream, I’m all ears. Your first example utterly failed. Do you have a better example to offer? That is your point of view, Owen. Which I respect. I don't expect that we'll agree on all things, or even anything :-). Rather than talk so much about it, I am going to do it and see what happens. That, for me, is my point. If others can join, that'll be great! Even phones consume asymmetrically and almost entirely down-stream. I was speaking about the evolution of expected usage patterns of a traditionally voice and SMS mobile network, not the 2G/3G/4G data (a)symmetry. Oh well... I’m all for bigger uplink pipes, but insisting on symmetry is absurd. I agree that one does not need symmetry at all times. But the potential to guarantee symmetry is good enough; or rather, the potential to limit degradation of symmetry in the upward direction is important, purely from a technology or hardware standpoint. That is why, in my trial, we are pushing Ethernet on Active-E, and not anything else. We are less likely to fail at the symmetry game if we pushed any other tech. It does not mean that 1:1 symmetry is absolutely necessary for sustained performance, it just means you remove that issue from the equation Day 1. Not sure what you mean by “degraded in a way that would make you happy”. On GPON, 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down seems reasonable. But because the uplink on GPON is asymmetric, that 30Mbps uplink could quickly disappear as the network is subscribed. On Active-E, 100Mbps up, 100Mbps down seems reasonable. Degradation of the uplink is a lot less likely due to the tech. (ceteris paribus). So if uplink degradation on an Active-E network were to occur, that 100Mbps would degrade a lot better than the 30Mbps on a GPON would. That's what I mean. This makes no sense whatsoever. I'll leave you to work it out... Mark.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 symmetric traffic patterns because it would make life easier for us. Remember that most carrier backbones are built of symmetric circuits. It would be nice but the users generally download more than they upload. That is the fact. Average != Peak. Why is this so hard to understand? Marketing, and the stupidity of marketeers. Seriously. I spent a few years of my life, back in the 1980s, consulting to various DoD agencies - and I can't tell you how many times my role was to defend ethernet purchases (made by IT departments) against Telcos who were pitching ISDN at the General Officer level (you don't need these new-fangled ethernets, an ISDN switch will handle all the data you need). I also got dragged into some discussions with, then, New England Telephones ISDN marketing folks. At one point, after lots of talk about how 64kbps was all you'd ever need for any reasonable data activity I made the observation that uploading a 1MB file, over their ISDN X.25 packet service would cost something like $100 in usage fees and take two minutes. Their response was who'd ever need to upload a 1MB file? I kid you not. Of course, I later found out that NET did have some folks who understood - it's just they were all working on selling their brand new Frame Relay service - still only 64kb, but at least the cost was a bit more reasonable, and the marketeers understood what they were selling, and to whom. Meanwhile, today, we still see commercials talking about how much faster one can download an entire HD movie over brand x cable system's higher speed service. Not generally how people are using the net. 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 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 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, Who can foresee what APPs might come about if uplinks speeds weren't so low. I liken it to whoever said no one will ever need more than 640KB of memory. Regards, Steve Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
(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 the time today would be 100M/30M. But around here, the best you can get is 50M/5M (cable) or 12M/1M (VDSL). The 5M upstream on the cable is also a fairly recent improvement, it used to be 1M as well - and still is for most non-super ultra mega premium tiers, I believe. 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. And both those variables are the problem. The current service offerings have been carefully designed to balance existing technology and observed actual usage characteristics, leaving essentially nothing for future technological evolution to grow into. The problem is that if you make service offerings significantly more than the expected peak rate, then there is no longer incentive for customers to buy more than the most basic tier of service. ... 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 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 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. 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? 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. -w -- William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk | School of Informatics http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ | University of Edinburgh The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. pgpWCYOnElsmF.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 get DSLon copper, but because the copper pipe is so short they can crank a hell of a lot of bps over it. Enough to deliver HDTV, at whatever compression rate they use to their set top boxes. It's way more then the 5 Mb/s up/down (S)DSL I would be quite happy with :-) --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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! Prescriptive trying to pass as descriptive. -- -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 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 their TOS about not hosting servers. It's been so long, I thought that perhaps I might be remembering wrong. 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? You mean like how ESPN3 charges the ISP based on customers (who don't even care about ESPN) for access to their content instead of having customers create accounts and just pay for it themselves? It's extremely annoying, especially if you are small. It's a 2 way street. I really hope both sides lose. I love the ISP business, but I really hate the idea of having to negotiate pricing for every little thing. Honestly, if I could get away with transit only and not run a server, I might be happier. Jack
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
You are forgetting that the Internet and ISPs where originally common carriers and the FCC at the behest of the government decided to de-regulate so that they could raid, arrest, charge, fine and torture ISPs if their customers visited websites the governement did not like, sent email the government did not like, or posted to web forums something that the government did not like. Contrast that with things which remained common carriers (wireline telephone) wherein the carrier is not responsible for what the customer does using their telephone. --- Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. Sometimes theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@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 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 situation as it existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory actions would have been initiated. There seems to be a lot of forgotten history in this discussion... The FCC tried a light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $CABLECOs sued them and got it eliminated. Then they tried a different light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $TELCOs sued them and got it eliminated. They were left with two basic choices at that point: 1. Allow the $TELCO and $CABLECO abuses working against an open internet to continue, which, frankly is what most of the more cynical among us expected, especially when Wheeler (who has traditionally been a mouthpiece for the $CABLE_LOBBY) announced his initial fast- lane proposal. 2. Use real authority and real regulations that exist and make the internet subject to those regulations, which appears to be what actually happened. I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come. In this particular case, I think it is primarily $INCUMBENT_OLIGOPOLY_PROVIDERs which lose. As near as I can tell from what is in the actual regulations, everyone else pretty much wins. Yes, there are probably some tradeoffs and I'm sure that the incumbents will attempt to find ways to make this as painful as possible for consumers while they throw their typical temper tantrums. (Think they're above temper tantrums, then look at Verizon's blog in morse code.) Reading the RO once it is released will be very interesting, at least in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR§8. Heh, part of the rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this docket.. I suspect that they want to be able to take real complaints seriously and not waste resources on a large number of frivolous complaints. Since the intent is to primarily deal with the B2B interactions between content and service providers where one is abusing the other to the detriment of the end-users, I suspect all the intended players have the resources to comply with the filing requirements fairly easily, but it prevents every Tom, Dick, and Johnny with a web browser from becoming an expensive PITA. Sort of a You must be this tall to ride process, for lack of a better term. However, that's pure speculation on my part, and I agree reading the actual RO will be interesting. Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional regulatory process to occur in recent memory. Owen
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 as cranks. Even though they keep hiring us to run their networks. In the spirit of adding real data to the symmetry conversation, let me describe why I would prefer symmetric. Currently I have all-copper DSL running at 3 Mb/s down and about 640 Kb/s up. There are days I wish I had 1.5 Mb each way, as there are times when I need to push large files out (well in excess of 1 GB each). Doing that now is painfully slow, but I can live with the long transfer times because I'm not doing it every day. Where it is painful is how the clogged pipe breaks other things. The big one is my SIP phone service. Because the ACKs on the file upload come back faster than the data can leave, it's almost impossible to avoid queueing delays in my border router, despite it being a real UNIX box vs. a cheap appliance NAT router with buffer bloat. TCP doesn't deal well with the asymmetry, so the only way to address this is to drastically reduce the sendspace window on my uploading box in order to throttle it back to where TCP's flow control works as designed. So do I hack FTP and ssh on my machines to take a command line option to squash the sendspace? Or worse, do I use the existing knobs to turn sendspace down for the entire host? Neither one is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to implement either. Having a DSL link that allocated bandwidth based on real-time need would solve this for me. But since that's not an option, converting the link I have from ADSL to SDSL would solve my problem. I would gladly trade in a portion of my downstream *bandwidth* for a corresponding reduction in my upstream *latency*. And I suspect a lot of those bullshitting ISPs would find this is what our customers want if their customers ever learned that it is this asymmetry that underlies many of their perceived performance issues. 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 only a handful of us here with service of any sort, they aren't about to come out and reroute us to the fibre pedestal. So I get to stay on the very long and corroded copper circuit back to one of the original downtown Vancouver exchanges. As one of the Telus techs said when he came out to help troubleshoot a failing DSL modem: I am amazed it works at all :-) And he's right -- the dB line losses are horrific. --lyndon signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 regulations do not have to use consistent definitions (and many times definitions are not consistent!); the local-to-the-section definition usually (but not always; it's always up for interpretation at hearing time!) trumps any other. The local definitions for the context of 47CFR§8 are found in §8.11, and do not mention required bandwidth. It seems to include any 'eyeball' network, regardless of bandwidth. The definition in 47CFR§8.11(a) is classic FCC wordsmithing. Think of 'scope of definition' as being similar to 'longest prefix matching' in routing, and it will be clear what is going on here. Hint: a particular section of the Rules can hijack a term out from under the general definitions, much like prefixes can be hijacked out from under their containing prefix. The difference is that in the Rules, a particular paragraph or subparagraph can hijack a term and say 'for the purposes of this paragraph, term 'A' means the opposite of what it means everywhere else' and that definition in that scope will stand the test of hearing.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Spoken by someone that apparently has no idea how things work. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:38:34 PM Subject: 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. 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
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. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Mike Hammett 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 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 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 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
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. Back when we were building the ARPANET, and then Telenet, there were several FCC decisions that made it very clear that leased lines were regulated under Title II, value added networks built from those networks were not regulated. I'm pretty sure this was part of the computer inquiries, the first of which dates back to the 1960s, but I forget which one. As soon as ATT realized that there was real money to be made, they tried very hard to get the VANs regulate and tariffed (actually, they tried to get them shut down) and abortively tried launching X.25 services of their own. Miles Fidelman Keith Medcalf wrote: You are forgetting that the Internet and ISPs where originally common carriers and the FCC at the behest of the government decided to de-regulate so that they could raid, arrest, charge, fine and torture ISPs if their customers visited websites the governement did not like, sent email the government did not like, or posted to web forums something that the government did not like. Contrast that with things which remained common carriers (wireline telephone) wherein the carrier is not responsible for what the customer does using their telephone. --- Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. Sometimes theory and practice are combined: nothing works and no one knows why. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@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 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 situation as it existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory actions would have been initiated. There seems to be a lot of forgotten history in this discussion... The FCC tried a light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $CABLECOs sued them and got it eliminated. Then they tried a different light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $TELCOs sued them and got it eliminated. They were left with two basic choices at that point: 1. Allow the $TELCO and $CABLECO abuses working against an open internet to continue, which, frankly is what most of the more cynical among us expected, especially when Wheeler (who has traditionally been a mouthpiece for the $CABLE_LOBBY) announced his initial fast- lane proposal. 2. Use real authority and real regulations that exist and make the internet subject to those regulations, which appears to be what actually happened. I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come. In this particular case, I think it is primarily $INCUMBENT_OLIGOPOLY_PROVIDERs which lose. As near as I can tell from what is in the actual regulations, everyone else pretty much wins. Yes, there are probably some tradeoffs and I'm sure that the incumbents will attempt to find ways to make this as painful as possible for consumers while they throw their typical temper tantrums. (Think they're above temper tantrums, then look at Verizon's blog in morse code.) Reading the RO once it is released will be very interesting, at least in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR§8. Heh, part of the rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this docket.. I suspect that they want to be able to take real complaints seriously and not waste resources on a large number of frivolous complaints. Since the intent is to primarily deal with the B2B interactions between content and service providers where one is abusing the other to the detriment of the end-users, I suspect all the intended players have the resources to comply with the filing requirements fairly easily, but it prevents every Tom, Dick, and Johnny with a web browser from becoming an expensive PITA. Sort
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 only a handful of us here with service of any sort, they aren't about to come out and reroute us to the fibre pedestal. So I get to stay on the very long and corroded copper circuit back to one of the original downtown Vancouver exchanges. As one of the Telus techs said when he came out to help troubleshoot a failing DSL modem: I am amazed it works at all :-) And he's right -- the dB line losses are horrific. --lyndon The question is, if YOU paid for the fiber to be run to their ped, would they hook you up? Jack
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the approval of our elected President. 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? And how nice that the people who decided that this authority suddenly existed, are the ones who voted themselves that authority (referring to the vote on Thursday), and will be wielding that authority. Actually, many people realized they had the authority, including, but not limited to the FCC, the incumbent Telco/Cablecos, and Congress. To the credit of the commission, they tried very hard to find ways not to use such heavy handed authority to prevent the current abuses by the Telco/Cablecos, but each of their major efforts was thwarted by lawsuits from those same Telcos and Cablecos. Now, you want to cry foul because, faced with essentially no other way to stop the current string of abuses, the FCC has chosen to use the one and only authority it has that will stand up in court? That’s absurd. The commissioners didn’t suddenly realize this authority existed, they have been trying to avoid using it in such a heavy handed manner until the organizations they were trying to regulate essentially left them no other choice. Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of this authority, and their long term application of that authority, could be frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... and what they COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without anything more than another one of their little votes amongst themselves--could be very very different. Sure… Not the least of which is FCC commissioner appointments are not lifetime appointments and even if they were, they wouldn’t live forever, so you’re going to have a different commission at some point in the future. That’s also true of Congress, the supreme court (and don’t get me started on some of their gaffs, such as Plessey V. Ferguson, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, etc.). This isn’t a power grab. It’s a very judicious exercise of power they’ve had for a long time which they waited as long as possible to exercise. If you don’t like this, then the people to blame are not the commissioners, but the incumbent telcos and cablecos that brought this on themselves by blocking every attempt at more gentle regulation. FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true, right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE your house is also covered by those same regulations and monitoring directives for outside air. Therefore, to carry out their task of monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random warrent-less raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment rights. If the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes to smoke), that person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. When asked about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points out that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act past so many decades ago. First of all, congress can’t exceed the authority of the fourth amendment, so that wouldn’t fly and you know it. The constitution overrides congress, not the other way around. Nothing in the FCC ruling that I’ve seen seems to have any fourth amendment (or any other portion of the bill of rights) implications as near as I can tell, even with the (bizarre and absurd) extensions recently granted by the supreme court in Citizens United. What, exactly, is it that you find so objectionable in the actual ruling? (Please cite CFR section or quote the objectionable pieces in your response). What horrible consequences is it that you think can come from further FCC interpretation or application of this ruling? I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases, the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using a statute that was originally intended for public space) Yes… Quite a bit more given that your example is completely preposterous _AND_ unconstitutional, whereas this net neutrality ruling is simply the next step in an ongoing battle between consumers+content providers vs. the
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 push/pull. Lousy upstream bandwidth leads to remote siting of web hosting for example. From that we should conclude people don't want to host their websites at home? Similar statements have been made about remote backup. These glib declarations of what the market wants are just that, glib and not really based on much anything. Besides, it's a (rapidly) moving target. People once argued that 56kbps symmetric (dial-up) was plenty for the average user. Then when ISDN promised 128kbps many thought it was amazing and should be put into every home and we'd finally have the internet we dreamed of, a lot of it was deployed in Europe and Japan. As I remember EFF (and others) fought long and hard for broader deployment of 2B+D ISDN in the US. As some of us who looked into the technology kept pointing out it was an inherent loser, too expensive to deploy very widely and never intended or designed for raw bandwidth distribution. Its economics depended on the telcos owning per msg email fees (it was designed in another era) etc so it was more a give away the cameras and sell the film sort of technology, they had to own, i.e., be able to bill, the whole stack (email, etc.) as then perceived. There is a strong tendency to rationalize the current state of the technology. -- -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
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
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 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 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 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
Except for the fact that the FCC decided that they wanted to give up Title II regulation of the internet because they were paid to do so by the telephants, they would have alwAYS had this power. The people who were bribed are simply dead and the current crop of officials (they are not representatives -- they are elected officials) do not feel obligated by the bribes accepted by their corrupt predecessors. --- Theory is when you know everything but nothing works. Practice is when everything works but no one knows why. Sometimes theory and practice are combined: nothing works 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 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 they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the approval of our elected President. 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? And how nice that the people who decided that this authority suddenly existed, are the ones who voted themselves that authority (referring to the vote on Thursday), and will be wielding that authority. Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of this authority, and their long term application of that authority, could be frighteningly different. What they say they will do for now... and what they COULD do in the future if this power grab stands--without anything more than another one of their little votes amongst themselves--could be very very different. FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true, right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE your house is also covered by those same regulations and monitoring directives for outside air. Therefore, to carry out their task of monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random warrent-less raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment rights. If the CO2 levels are too high (because someone likes to smoke), that person then gets fined, or their house gets bulldozed, etc. When asked about how they get that authority, someone like Lamar Owen points out that Congress gave them this authority in such-in-such clean air act past so many decades ago. I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases, the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using a statute that was originally intended for public space) But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do now.. it is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE accountability, in the future. Arguing for/against this power grab... only based on what they say they will do for now, is very naive. Future generations may ask us, why didn't you stop this? When we answer, well, it wasn't implemented as badly when it first started. They'll reply, but you should have checked to see how far this could go once that power grab was allowed (or ignored!) -- Rob McEwen
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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. Your implementation will vary (and so will your roll-out dates). I also seem to recall a Broadcom press release about chips and reference designs becoming available.
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 themselves in the short term. Had some people not apparently taken advantage of the situation as it existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory actions would have been initiated. There seems to be a lot of forgotten history in this discussion… The FCC tried a light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $CABLECOs sued them and got it eliminated. Then they tried a different light-weight low-touch form of open internet regulation. $TELCOs sued them and got it eliminated. They were left with two basic choices at that point: 1. Allow the $TELCO and $CABLECO abuses working against an open internet to continue, which, frankly is what most of the more cynical among us expected, especially when Wheeler (who has traditionally been a mouthpiece for the $CABLE_LOBBY) announced his initial fast-lane proposal. 2. Use real authority and real regulations that exist and make the internet subject to those regulations, which appears to be what actually happened. I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come. In this particular case, I think it is primarily $INCUMBENT_OLIGOPOLY_PROVIDERs which lose. As near as I can tell from what is in the actual regulations, everyone else pretty much wins. Yes, there are probably some tradeoffs and I’m sure that the incumbents will attempt to find ways to make this as painful as possible for consumers while they throw their typical temper tantrums. (Think they’re above temper tantrums, then look at Verizon’s blog in morse code.) Reading the RO once it is released will be very interesting, at least in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR§8. Heh, part of the rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this docket.. I suspect that they want to be able to take real complaints seriously and not waste resources on a large number of frivolous complaints. Since the intent is to primarily deal with the B2B interactions between content and service providers where one is abusing the other to the detriment of the end-users, I suspect all the intended players have the resources to comply with the filing requirements fairly easily, but it prevents every Tom, Dick, and Johnny with a web browser from becoming an expensive PITA. Sort of a “You must be this tall to ride” process, for lack of a better term. However, that’s pure speculation on my part, and I agree reading the actual RO will be interesting. Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional regulatory process to occur in recent memory. Owen
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 well how do you know we don't carry all groups if you can't seem to name which groups we don't carry? He continued to hem and haw. I said oh you mean like child porn? Well, he said, let's say that's so, it would still be fraudulent to claim you carry ALL groups if you don't carry those, right? I said wrong, if a druggist says he stocks all drugs that doesn't have to include illegal drugs. After offering him a reasonable refund i got him off the phone. As others have said let's hope that's all that's implied. On February 27, 2015 at 14:32 khe...@zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote: While I view that statement with trepidation, my first guess would one that isn't in violation of state or federal law. About the only things I can think off hand, ie stuff we get told to take down as hosters today, are sites violating copyright law and child pornography. I hope that we don't see any additions to that list. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu wrote: On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote: What's a lawful web site? Now *there* is a $64,000 question. Even more interesting is, Who gets to decide day to day the answer to that question? :) -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066 -- -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 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 are where we are now. Mike
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 start with so it made sense for consumers to have more bandwidth in one direction than another. Another still was that cross-talk causes enough interference to prevent reverse adsl (i.e. greater bandwidth from customer to exchange) from working well. 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. Some operators used and continue to use asymmetric bandwidth profiles and bandwidth caps as methods for driving up revenue rather than anything else in particular. International cellular roaming plans come to mind as one of the more egregious example of this, but there are many others. Nick
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 uplink rates as long as we don't go below ~5 mbps on the uplink. On Feb 28, 2015 10:46 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote: 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 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, Who can foresee what APPs might come about if uplinks speeds weren't so low. I liken it to whoever said no one will ever need more than 640KB of memory. Regards, Steve Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum(678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 such person block applications that compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject to reasonable network management. What's a lawful web site? That would likely be determined on a case-by-case basis during Commission review of a complaint, I would imagine, with each FCC document related to each case becoming part of the collection of precedent (whether said document is a NAL, NOV, or RO would be somewhat immaterial). The obvious answer is 'a website that has no illegal content' but once something is brought to a hearing, what is 'obvious' doesn't really matter. If you want to read about the types of rationale that can be used to determine terms like 'lawful' in this context, search through Enforcement Bureau actions relating to 47CFR§73.3999 Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464 (restrictions on the transmission of obscene and indecent material). For more technical considerations, you might find the collection of precedent on what satisfies 47CFR§73.1300, 1350, and 1400 to be more interesting reading, if you're into this sort of arcana.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 exercise it are two different things. Of course it was realized that they had this authority already; that's why these regulations were fought so strongly. Nobody has refuted my statement that their stated intentions for use of this authority, and their long term application of that authority, could be frighteningly different. It's impossible to refute such a vaguely worded supposition. Refuting a 'could be' is like nailing gelatin to the wall, because virtually anything 'could be' even at vanishingly small probabilities. I 'could be' given a million dollars by a random strange tomorrow, but it's very unlikely. FOR PERSPECTIVE... CONSIDER THIS HYPOTHETICAL: Suppose that the EPA was given a statutory power to monitor air quality (which is likely true, right)... decades later, a group of EPA officials have a little vote amongst themselves and they decide that they now define the air INSIDE your house is also covered by those same regulations and monitoring directives for outside air. Ok, I'll play along. So far, a reasonable analogy, except that such an ex parte action (a 'little vote amongst themselves') wouldn't survive judicial review. The FCC Commissioners didn't just 'have a little vote amongst themselves;' they held a complete, according to statute rulemaking proceeding. That is what our elected representatives have mandated that the FCC is to do when decisions need to be made. Therefore, to carry out their task of monitoring the air inside your home, they conduct random warrent-less raids inside your homes, thus violating your 4th amendment rights. This is where your analogy drops off the deep end. The FCC will hear complaints from complainants who must follow a particular procedure and request specific relief after attempting to resolve the dispute by direct communication with the ISP in question. There aren't any 'raids' provided for by the current regulation; have you ever heard of any raids from a Title II action previously? There is no provision in the current regulation as passed for the FCC to do any monitoring; it's up to the complainant to make their case that the defendant violated 47CFR§8. This doesn't change the statute, just the regulations derived from the statute. To go with your analogy, as part of the newly added powers of the EPA under your hypothetical, it would now be possible for a complainant, after attempting to satisfy a 'inside the building unclean air' complaint with a particular establishment but failing, and having to go through a significant procedure, to get the EPA to rule that the owner of that establishment must provide relief to the complainant or be fined. No authority to raid, just authority to respond to complaints and fine accordingly. Any change to that rule requires another rulemaking proceeding. Before the FCC can change the wording to add any of your supposed power grab increases they will have to go through another full docket, with required public notices and the NPRM. And the courts can throw it all out. The FCC's primary power is economic, by fining. I know that hypothetical example is even more preposterous than this net neutrality ruling... but probably not that much more! (in BOTH cases, the power grab involves an intrusion upon privately-owned space.. using a statute that was originally intended for public space) The telecommunications infrastructure is in reality public space, not private, and has been for a really long time. Or are there any physical-layer facilities that are not regulated in some way? Let's see: 1.) Telephone copper and fiber? Nope, regulated as a common carrier already. 2.) Satellite? Nope, regulated. 3.) Wireless (3G, 4G)? Nope, regulated, and many of the spectrum auctions have strings attached, as Verizon Wireless found out last year. 4.) 2.4GHz ISM? Nope, regulated under §15 and subject to being further regulated. 5.) Municipal fiber? Nope, it's public by definition. 6.) Point to point optical? Maybe, but this is a vanishingly small number of links; I helped install one of these several years back. 7.) Point to point licensed microwave? Nope, regulated; license required. Even way back in NSFnet days the specter of regulation, in the form of discouragement of commercial traffic across the NSFnet, was present. I don't understand why people are so surprised at this ruling; the Internet is becoming a utility for the end user; it's no longer a free-for-all in the provider space. But the bigger picture isn't what the FCC STATES that they will do now.. it is what unelected FCC officials could do, with LITTLE accountability, in
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 and 4th amendment violations, not just today's foot in the door details! How they got the authority is through the Communications Act of 1934, as passed and amended by our elected representatives in Congress, with the approval of our elected President. The largest amendments are from 1996, as I recall. The specific citations are 47 U.S.C. secs. 151, 152, 153, 154, 201, 218, 230, 251, 254, 256, 257, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, 332, 403, 503, 522, 536, 548, and 1302 (that list is from the Authority section of §8 itself, and will be elaborated upon in the RO, likely with multiple paragraphs explaining why each of those enumerated sections of 47 USC apply here. Commission RO's will typically spend a bit of time on the history of each relevant section, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see the Telecom Act of 1996 quoted there.). It will be interesting to see how the judiciary responds, or how Congress responds, for that matter, as Congress could always amend the Communications Act of 1934 again (subject to Executive approval, of course). In any case, the Report and Order will give us a lot more information on why the regulations read the way they do, and on how this authority is said to derive from the portions of the USC as passed by Congress (and signed by the President). And at that point things could get really interesting. Our govermental system of checks and balances at work. 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 situation as it existed before the proceeding in docket 14-28, it's likely no regulatory actions would have been initiated. I'm not cheerleading by any means; I would much prefer less regulation than more in almost every situation; but the simple fact is that people do tend to abuse the lack of regulations long enough for regulatory agencies to take notice, and then everyone loses when regulations come. As an extreme example of how onerous regulations could be, if the Commission were to decide to decree that all ISP's have to use ATM cells instead of variable length IP packets on the last mile, they actually do have the regulatory authority to set that standard (they did exactly this for AM Stereo in the 80's, for IBOC HD Radio, and then the ATSC DTV standard (it was even an unfunded mandate in that case), not to mention the standards set in §68 for equipment connected to the public switched telephone network, etc). The FCC even auctioned off spectrum already in use by §15 wireless microphones and amended §15 making those wireless mics (in the 700MHz range) illegal to use, even though many are still out there. So it could be very much worse; this new section is one of the shortest sections of 47CFR I've ever read. Much, much, simpler and shorter than my bread and butter in 47CFR§§11, 73, and 101. Reading the RO once it is released will be very interesting, at least in my opinion, since we'll get a glimpse into the rationale and the thought processes that went into each paragraph and subparagraph of this new section in 47CFR. I'm most interested in the rationale behind the pleading requirements, like requiring complainants to serve the complaint by hand delivery on the named defendant, requiring the complainant to serve two copies on the Market Disputes Resolution Division of the EB, etc. This seems to be a pretty high bar to filing a complaint; it's not like you can just fill out a form on the FCC website to report your ISP for violating 47CFR§8. Heh, part of the rationale might be the fact that they got over 2 million filings on this docket..
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
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 satisfaction as compared to users at similar download rates but lower uplink rates as long as we don't go below ~5 mbps on the uplink. On Feb 28, 2015 10:46 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote: It's not just about what's available, though. it's also about the users themselves. Usage of the average 80 year old is different than the average 40 year old. The current teenager definitely has different usage. That's a good point. (IMHO) email became a big market driver when students started graduating college and lost their email access. Today, students go to college, experience dorm rooms with gigE jacks in their dorm rooms connected back to high speed backbone nets. And they've been doing that for a decade. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
