>> causes enough interference to prevent reverse adsl (i.e. greater bandwidth
>> from customer to exchange) from working well.
>
> So SDSL didn't exist? Anyhow, *DSL is falling so far behind it's
> difficult to analyze what could have been.
>
SDSL existed, but every bps upstream that you get in
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 s
On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote:
> 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
>
> > Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
> > deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.
N, it was not. It was a technology issue from the very beginning.
Technology limits of coax cable plants even before DOCSIS. Also dslam
designs were such that the
Yes, it's changing -- the ratio is higher. At least that's what tracking of
our eyeball customers has shown over the last 6+ years.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Satchell
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:13 AM
To: nanog@na
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?
On Feb 28, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> I remember when downloading still images (dial-up days) was considered
> bandwidth hogging and only something very few people did. Of course no
> one did it, it took minutes to download even a rather small image and
> there was little market for
On February 28, 2015 at 16:50 na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) wrote:
> Spoken by someone that apparently has no idea how things work.
Now there's a deep and insightful refutation.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> -
On March 1, 2015 at 09:46 ma...@isc.org (Mark Andrews) wrote:
>
> Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount
> of time it takes to download content. It doesn't matter if they
> only do this occasionally. Without symetric speeds they can't do
> this. They are being gi
On February 28, 2015 at 17:07 gward...@gwsystems.co.il (Gary Wardell) wrote:
> > Actually, I think the incumbents do get it, at this point - at least
> > Verizon does. FIOS is a pretty nice offering, and they offer some pretty
> > high speeds,
> > both up and down.
Don't hold your breat
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
+1
Th spectral split between down and up is real, has existed for a very long
time, and isn't a master of remapping.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
> You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying
> In my part of the world, a well-known service provider runs FTTC and
> then runs VDSL into the home. Ummh...
I live in a 3rd word country. Oh Canada!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
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.
On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
>
> On 02/28/2015 03:14 PM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
>> You do of course realize that the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/Mar/15 02:42, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>
> 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
On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> (N.B.: "we forced long TTLs to reduce the traffic necessary across our
> peering points." At one point, the cable people said they had one,
> count 'em one, peering link at 44 megabits/s, to serve all cable
> companies [with their own inter
On 2/28/2015 7:24 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
How did I know about the DNS server manipulation? I worked for a Web
hosting company with about 3,000 domains being served. Whenever the
company renumbered (until it finally got its own IP allocation in order
to multi-home) we would have to service
On 02/28/2015 02:49 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 2/28/2015 4:38 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> 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 I
So long as the broadband service provider's e-mail filtering is
performed only on their e-mail server and does not involve blocking IP
traffic on consumers' connections.
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently
blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail custom
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Michael Thomas 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 impl
On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bates 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 be
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 o
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
>>> mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
[...]
> Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for
> anything else.
> 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 d
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
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
thi
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 gover
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 repres
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 com
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
animate
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
- Or
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 t
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 wrote:
>
>
> Can we stop the disingenuity?
>
> Asymmetric service was intr
On 02/28/2015 02:38 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Can we stop the disingenuity?
Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from
deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.
Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth.
That's exactly how I remember why we
On 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 i
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"
To: "NANOG"
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 4:38:34 PM
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on
Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount
of time it takes to download content. It doesn't matter if they
only do this occasionally. Without symetric speeds they can't do
this. They are being given a slow path.
Arguing otherwise is like saying that their time is not impo
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 comme
> From the consumer standpoint, I *really* don't think it's too much to ask
> that when I have the occasional 10 gig image to upload that it takes me <<
> than a full day. This has nothing really to do with symmetry, per se. It's
> the need to adapt to what the traffic is *actually* doing at p
> Actually, I think the incumbents do get it, at this point - at least Verizon
> does. FIOS is a pretty nice offering, and they offer some pretty high speeds,
> both up and down.
I don't know about other markets, but in the DC market FIOS is not with
business accounts, thus you can't get FIO
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/
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!
Presc
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 wel
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:29 , Rob McEwen 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
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:59 , Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 02/28/2015 08:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> 20 years ago was into AOL's prime, so yes they did.
>>>
>>> Great, let's re-evaluate the system when demand necessitates it. For many
>>> systems, it's literally
>> 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
On 02/28/2015 02:29 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet,
nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly
just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those
years, right?
Having authority and choosing to
On 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 pas
The folks that do want to do it themselves... are.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "Miles Fidelman"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:59:37 PM
Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was
I also am happy that I am not normal, but that doesn't change what the general
population does.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: "James R Cutler"
To: "Mike Hammett"
Cc: "NANOG"
Sent: Saturday, February 28,
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
satisfac
Michael Thomas wrote:
On 02/28/2015 08:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
20 years ago was into AOL's prime, so yes they did.
Great, let's re-evaluate the system when demand necessitates it. For
many systems, it's literally as simple as changing how many channels
are allocated to what directions.
I think you underestimate how many broadband customers are folks who
take work home from the office, or school). Heck, an awful lot of high
school assignments involve writing papers and presentations jointly with
other kids, and these days word documents and multi-media PPT
presentations can g
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 an
Mike,
I’m probably happy that I am not normal, as are my clients not normal.
Why are you descending to ad hominem rather than facts?
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Do normal people do it?
On 02/27/2015 03:12 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Two pages? Read the news, man.
I'd rather read the actual regulations, from the source, in 47CFR§8.
They're public. The enforcement won't come from what the news said.
You say you haven't read the actual R&O. Nobody in the public sector,
or even
You can call it, but the line has been disconnected.
I know tons of people with those devices. What do they do with them? Netflix,
Amazon, Youtube, etc. Less than 10% of even techies I know have in-home
media... and they've already run copper or fiber everywhere anyway.
In-home media is likel
Mike, I call bullshit here.
The sales of Apple TV, Google Chromecast, Amazon’s streaming stick, TiVO
Stream, and other set-top boxes that stream room to room are just too high to
believe that people are not using these devices to move A/V information within
the home. Add to that the number of p
On 02/28/2015 09:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
...Spam, the slang term for unsolicited bulk email (UBE), is a form of
denial-of-service attack and may/should be treated in the same way as
other DoS attacks. ---rsk
47CFR§8.11(d) Reasonable network management. A network management
practice is reas
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 reg
On 02/28/2015 08:59 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
20 years ago was into AOL's prime, so yes they did.
Great, let's re-evaluate the system when demand necessitates it. For many
systems, it's literally as simple as changing how many channels are allocated
to what directions.
By that logic, we would
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 su
20 years ago was into AOL's prime, so yes they did.
Great, let's re-evaluate the system when demand necessitates it. For many
systems, it's literally as simple as changing how many channels are allocated
to what directions.
By that logic, we would have been running 486s with 32 gigs of RAM be
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 u
Selling 1 gig symmetric service to more than one person on GPON is definitely
oversubscription. I'm completely fine with it, but the fiber\Google zealots
think nothing could ever go wrong and they have the world by the [NSFW].
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.
On 02/28/2015 08:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I use Skype regularly. It doesn't require 10 megabits.
No, I didn't forget about them. There's simply not that many of them.
No game requires significant amounts of upload.
I forgot nothing and none of what you presented changes my statement in any
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
upl
I use Skype regularly. It doesn't require 10 megabits.
No, I didn't forget about them. There's simply not that many of them.
No game requires significant amounts of upload.
I forgot nothing and none of what you presented changes my statement in any
material manner.
-
Mike Hammett
On 02/28/2015 07:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Over 95% of the people don't do anything of the sort (probably much
> closer to 100 than 95). The most common usage is tablets and phones
> going to Facebook, YouTube and Netflix. Regular consumers couldn't
> care less about anything else. If you think
Over 95% of the people don't do anything of the sort (probably much closer to
100 than 95). The most common usage is tablets and phones going to Facebook,
YouTube and Netflix. Regular consumers couldn't care less about anything else.
If you think otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too
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 fo
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Only have a 25 meg Internet service? Use a 5 MHz channel, not 160 MHz.
So, if I use wireless to my, for example, Apple TV, I should limit the rate
between my file server Mac and the Apple TV based on my Internet connection
speed?
I’m not ce
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 02:48:07PM +0900, Collin Anderson wrote:
> How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
> network neutrality rules for network management of SPAM?
SPAM, being a product of the Hormel Corporation, is not a concern in
this context. Spam, the slang t
With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
therefore the providers can't block it.
How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
network neutrality rules for network management of
WiFi also has 50% overhead, so cut all modulation rates in half. That 300 meg
modulation under the best conditions only does 150 megabit aggregate.
The problem with WiFi is that IEEE keeps rolling out larger and larger channels
when they're not even usable due to interference. IEEE needs to imp
(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
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
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 conten
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:24:17 +, "Naslund, Steve"
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 downstre
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 01:22 , Mark Tinka 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
On 28/Feb/15 10:51, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Competition? What competition? I realize you’re not in the US,...
Yes, I know competition in the U.S. is not where it ought to be :-).
My comment was more global, as we all use the same technologies around
the world, even though you do get varying levels
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 22:23 , Mark Tinka 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
82 matches
Mail list logo
