Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo... -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- Scott
-- Scott
You want 1930s telecom, you got it. ;-) Yes, I know telephone was available then. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Fisher" <littlefishguy@gmail.com> To: "Larry Sheldon" <larrysheldon@cox.net>, "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:10:58 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo... -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- Scott
-- Scott
Got your attention. Made a statement. Good for them. "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> wrote on 02/27/2015 09:10:58 AM:
From: Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> To: Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Date: 02/27/2015 09:12 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Sent by: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote: thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
-- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
The fact that they are infallible; and,
The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
-- Scott
-- Scott
Scott Fisher, I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA. btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? Rob McEwen On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
"Blah blah politics". This is Verizon whining. plain and simple. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
Rob McEwen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback- thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
Morse code is just a different binary encoding. Also, commercial AM broadcasting started in the 20s, a couple decades past Marconi. Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? -Mike.
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own. Bob Evans CTO
Bob Evans wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T? Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Let's also remember that it was regulatory action that enabled us to connect modems and phones to AT&T's network. (Can you say "Carterphone" decision) And it was Title II regulation, and the Computer Inquiries, that allowed the Internet to be assembled from circuits leased from AT&T long lines. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans <bob@fiberinternetcenter.com> wrote:
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
But that didn't stop most of us old timers on this list. The first "digital" circuit that I played with as a kid was an old Strowger switch pulled from a junk yard. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On 02/27/2015 07:21 AM, Bob Evans wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own. Bob Evans CTO
I still have a WeCo desk set that is marked "Bell System Property / Not For Sale" Carterfone, anyone?
On Feb 27, 2015, at 7:21 AM, Bob Evans <bob@FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T?
Yes, I am that old. You were not allowed to connect a phone of your own.
Me too - I remember when my Dad got the nasty call from AT&T because he plugged in an unauthorized phone in the house - I guess they could tell from the additional resistance on the line. But the phone system worked pretty reliably back then - can’t say the same about today’s misc mash of systems. Anyway, back to the topic… this looks like most telecom debates: people latch onto one side or the other, the fight is in the context (problem statement and the definitions) but underneath it all there are actually reasonable perspectives on each side. Bill
Bob Evans CTO
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein <michael.holstein@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T?
No, but I remember in the late '90s AT&T demanding I mail them back the rotary phones that my grandmother had rented for 30 years. The bigest telcos were the architects of their own grief on Net Neutrality. No one should feel sorry for them. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)
Throttled Netflix to unusability while selling FIOS TV? Still have much of their settlement-free peering choked hard while "paid peering" folks sail on by? Verizon is easily the worst offender. Regards, Bill "loving those 100ms pings" Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:34:37 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Michael O Holstein <michael.holstein@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Just think of all that innovation and investment that's been "stifled" over the last 50 years under Title II. Anyone remember having to "rent" their rotary phones from AT&T?
No, but I remember in the late '90s AT&T demanding I mail them back the rotary phones that my grandmother had rented for 30 years. The bigest telcos were the architects of their own grief on Net Neutrality. No one should feel sorry for them. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)
Throttled Netflix to unusability while selling FIOS TV? Still have much of their settlement-free peering choked hard while "paid peering" folks sail on by? Verizon is easily the worst offender. Regards, Bill "loving those 100ms pings" Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court or FCC ruling they require... --msa
On 27-Feb-15 10:52, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:45:11AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The punishments will continue until they either fold or sell to the duopoly which is large enough to buy whatever act of Congress, court or FCC ruling they require...
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On 2015-02-27 12:49, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people.
*snrk* Really? Ok, I'll let my Inner Cynic out for a romp - the US government generally tends to represent only itself, which is not precisely the same thing as the people. I'll go way out on a limb and post a quote from a polemic snark-piece recently posted on the Net Neutrality decision: === "Why is this so difficult to understand? When forced to choose between big corporations and big government, you should never choose big government because whatever you don’t like about the big corporations WILL ALSO BE PRESENT IN BIG GOVERNMENT, ONLY WORSE, AND WITH GUNS." === And when the big corporations and the big government are thoroughly cross-pollinated, we're doubly screwed. Rest assured, the Verizons and AT&Ts in the world will make out just FINE as the FCC starts regulating the crap out of the situation. The Rest of Us™? Probably not so much. :) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people.
I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is incredible about this whole debate... is (1) how few people are actually suffering right now. If "net neutrality" had never made the news... and you went out and talked to 10,000 people, and forced them to sit down and write out their top 100 problems in life... and compiled all 1 million answers... I doubt internet connectivity problems or slow internet speeds would come up more than a few times... if even once! (2) meanwhile, we're such spoiled brats because... the bandwidth usage per second... AND the total number of users... AND the usage scenarios... AND the amount of hours of usage per day per person... has all SKYROCKETED in the past 15 years. It is AMAZING that the ISPs have kept pace. And this wasn't easy. My business is spam filtering and e-mail hosting... and in that related business... the usage levels per dollar of revenue (literally.. the # of MBs per dollar of revenue) is order of magnitudes higher than it was 15 years ago... and, like others, I've had to do amazing things to keep things flowing well with the same basic $/user. (getting faster hardware wasn't even nearly enough) That wasn't easy. (3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet to another access points. Yes, the choices are somewhat limited, but there are CHOICES (including 4G).. and, btw, there would have been MORE choices if the economy wasn't continuing to be anemic over the past several years. In contrast, when the government abuses their power, it is MUCH harder to move to another country. Plus, a bad ISP can only make someone's life so miserable. But an out-of-control government that has too much power can fine you, imprison you, IRS audit you, over-regulate you, legally (and illegally) spy on you, etc. (Just merely defining private networks as if they were "public airways"... is already a huge potential 4th amendment violation... why stop with cables moving data? Why not just make your hard drive... or your files in your filing cabnet part of their jurisdiction, too? Can they vote that in too? If you think not, tell me... what is stopping them that applies DIFFERENTLY from what they just did?) We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years. -- Rob McEwen
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
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? On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
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. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
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 <bhm@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. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for television during the time of the "fairness doctrine". In particular, these people *expect* the FCC to take a page from the IRS and start putting up roadblocks, if not outright blocks, on political content on views that differs from the views of the controlling Administration. Now, the Fairness Doctrine was not part of Title II, I agree. But we never expected the IRS to play favorites with not-for-profit organizations, either. On 02/27/2015 11:32 AM, 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.
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?" :)
In article <54F0E159.2000804@satchell.net> you write:
One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for television during the time of the "fairness doctrine".
I agree, that's not going to happen. 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. R's, John
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32:23PM -0000, John 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, therefore the providers can't block it.
Yeah... I've had a recurring nightmare for a while now. There are spammers that skate on the edge of "legal." Since they're legal, I can't drop their traffic anymore -- and they start filling my transit pipes. Then, they force me to privately peer with them... ...and then sue me to get bigger pipes... But hey -- at least it's neutral, so that's good.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
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 SPAM? -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
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 SPAM?
Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else. R's, John
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> 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.
There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes the documents public, which they haven't yet. Until the FCC publish the documents: it's kind of pointless to speculate what the unintended consequences might be. However, I believe E-mail is definitely an internet application, not broadband service, so filtering incoming E-mail on the provider's servers should definitely be unaffected. 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. What *might* happen is that spammers could sue if the broadband provider terminates a _subscriber's_ broadband service for sending outgoing spam, or the provider Attempts to block outgoing Port 25 traffic from their IP addresses, for the purpose of preventing operating SMTP Server applications, in order to reduce spamming attempts. (Now the service provider is blocking lawful traffic, outgoing SMTP!) My preferred resolution would be for the internet IP connectivity provider and the last mile Broadband/Layer 1 media connectivity carriers to be completely separate companies, with IP providers allowed to manage their Internet Protocol network however they see fit, and Broadband carriers required to provide equal connectivity to all competing local IP carriers. The broadband carrier need-not have an IP network, and the IP carrier might not even connect to the internet, or they might use communication protocols besides IP.
R's, John -- -JH
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 customers.
My preferred resolution would be for the internet IP connectivity provider and the last mile Broadband/Layer 1 media connectivity carriers to be completely separate companies, with IP providers allowed to manage their Internet Protocol network however they see fit, and Broadband carriers required to provide equal connectivity to all competing local IP carriers.
Yup. Works great in Europe, too easy and effective to do here. R's, John
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 50.130.64.172 c-50-130-64-172.hsd1.tn.comcast.net 50.162.220.128 c-50-162-220-128.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 50.165.94.164 c-50-165-94-164.hsd1.il.comcast.net 50.165.121.16 c-50-165-121-16.hsd1.in.comcast.net 68.56.178.193 c-68-56-178-193.hsd1.fl.comcast.net 71.229.180.119 c-71-229-180-119.hsd1.co.comcast.net 71.234.26.63 c-71-234-26-63.hsd1.ct.comcast.net 73.47.106.185 c-73-47-106-185.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 73.163.27.108 c-73-163-27-108.hsd1.dc.comcast.net 73.171.39.246 c-73-171-39-246.hsd1.va.comcast.net 73.198.24.166 c-73-198-24-166.hsd1.nj.comcast.net 75.67.200.133 c-75-67-200-133.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 76.30.102.104 c-76-30-102-104.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 76.116.249.169 c-76-116-249-169.hsd1.nj.comcast.net 98.194.102.63 c-98-194-102-63.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 98.196.186.124 c-98-196-186-124.hsd1.tx.comcast.net 98.229.88.228 c-98-229-88-228.hsd1.ma.comcast.net 98.233.42.2 c-98-233-42-2.hsd1.md.comcast.net 98.242.32.247 c-98-242-32-247.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 107.5.40.153 c-107-5-40-153.hsd1.mi.comcast.net 174.59.200.13 c-174-59-200-13.hsd1.pa.comcast.net And Time-Warner customers: 24.25.253.81 cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com 24.29.64.79 cpe-24-29-64-79.nycap.res.rr.com 24.59.66.78 cpe-24-59-66-78.twcny.res.rr.com 24.88.94.165 cpe-024-088-094-165.sc.res.rr.com 24.90.21.156 cpe-24-90-21-156.nyc.res.rr.com 24.163.27.190 cpe-024-163-027-190.triad.res.rr.com 24.163.91.145 cpe-024-163-091-145.nc.res.rr.com 24.164.150.4 cpe-24-164-150-4.si.res.rr.com 24.165.29.203 cpe-24-165-29-203.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.193.228.223 cpe-24-193-228-223.nyc.res.rr.com 65.191.116.113 cpe-065-191-116-113.nc.res.rr.com 66.75.15.251 cpe-66-75-15-251.san.res.rr.com 66.108.180.35 cpe-66-108-180-35.nyc.res.rr.com 67.11.76.246 cpe-67-11-76-246.rgv.res.rr.com 67.246.130.165 cpe-67-246-130-165.stny.res.rr.com 67.252.31.129 cpe-67-252-31-129.nycap.res.rr.com 68.207.225.95 95-225.207-68.tampabay.res.rr.com 68.207.226.177 177-226.207-68.tampabay.res.rr.com 70.92.2.220 cpe-70-92-2-220.wi.res.rr.com 70.92.13.93 cpe-70-92-13-93.wi.res.rr.com 70.124.120.145 cpe-70-124-120-145.stx.res.rr.com 71.65.225.141 cpe-071-065-225-141.nc.res.rr.com 71.72.101.199 cpe-71-72-101-199.columbus.res.rr.com 72.131.3.138 cpe-72-131-3-138.wi.res.rr.com 72.133.60.75 cpe-72-133-60-75.new.res.rr.com 72.181.54.177 cpe-72-181-54-177.rgv.res.rr.com 72.181.88.187 cpe-72-181-88-187.stx.res.rr.com 72.225.154.15 cpe-72-225-154-15.nj.res.rr.com 72.227.137.8 cpe-72-227-137-8.nyc.res.rr.com 74.137.19.108 cpe-74-137-19-108.swo.res.rr.com 74.138.245.76 cpe-74-138-245-76.swo.res.rr.com 75.179.4.175 cpe-75-179-4-175.neo.res.rr.com 75.191.230.203 cpe-075-191-230-203.ec.res.rr.com 76.170.88.22 cpe-76-170-88-22.socal.res.rr.com 98.30.172.37 cpe-98-30-172-37.woh.res.rr.com 104.229.55.248 cpe-104-229-55-248.rochester.res.rr.com 107.15.246.227 cpe-107-015-246-227.nc.res.rr.com 107.184.5.61 cpe-107-184-5-61.socal.res.rr.com 108.183.132.10 cpe-108-183-132-10.maine.res.rr.com 142.105.47.206 cpe-142-105-47-206.nj.res.rr.com 142.136.44.21 cpe-142-136-44-21.socal.res.rr.com 172.248.255.13 cpe-172-248-255-13.socal.res.rr.com 173.172.110.208 cpe-173-172-110-208.kc.res.rr.com 173.172.209.8 cpe-173-172-209-8.elp.res.rr.com 174.97.185.69 cpe-174-097-185-069.nc.res.rr.com 174.98.86.73 cpe-174-098-086-073.triad.res.rr.com 184.57.187.144 cpe-184-57-187-144.cinci.res.rr.com 198.72.234.76 cpe-198-72-234-76.socal.res.rr.com 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com And Charter customers: 24.107.177.229 24-107-177-229.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 24.179.114.97 24-179-114-97.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com 24.181.102.209 24-181-102-209.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com 24.216.108.175 24-216-108-175.dhcp.spbg.sc.charter.com 24.216.126.30 24-216-126-30.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 24.217.26.70 24-217-26-70.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 68.117.145.157 68-117-145-157.dhcp.unas.al.charter.com 68.187.203.34 68-187-203-34.dhcp.ahvl.nc.charter.com 68.188.144.106 68-188-144-106.dhcp.aldl.mi.charter.com 68.190.112.8 68-190-112-8.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com 71.10.113.254 71-10-113-254.dhcp.stpt.wi.charter.com 71.15.87.181 71-15-87-181.dhcp.gnvl.sc.charter.com 71.81.2.94 71-81-2-94.dhcp.ahvl.nc.charter.com 71.82.123.81 71-82-123-81.dhcp.roch.mn.charter.com 71.87.159.214 71-87-159-214.dhcp.hlrg.nc.charter.com 71.88.124.17 71-88-124-17.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com 71.88.162.4 71-88-162-4.dhcp.jcsn.tn.charter.com 71.91.32.99 71-91-32-99.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com 71.93.217.124 71-93-217-124.dhcp.psdn.ca.charter.com 75.134.228.105 75-134-228-105.dhcp.oxfr.ma.charter.com 75.137.29.178 75-137-29-178.dhcp.nwnn.ga.charter.com 75.138.79.107 75-138-79-107.dhcp.gwnt.ga.charter.com 96.33.158.221 96-33-158-221.dhcp.slid.la.charter.com 97.82.153.165 97-82-153-165.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com 97.82.173.147 97-82-173-147.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com 97.84.50.56 97-84-50-56.dhcp.leds.al.charter.com 97.85.80.159 97-85-80-159.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com 97.87.166.194 97-87-166-194.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 97.91.197.125 97-91-197-125.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com 97.93.16.32 97-93-16-32.dhcp.snlo.ca.charter.com And AT&T customers: 71.154.186.54 adsl-71-154-186-54.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net 75.17.194.68 adsl-75-17-194-68.dsl.euclwi.sbcglobal.net 75.34.43.151 adsl-75-34-43-151.dsl.chcgil.sbcglobal.net 76.202.135.216 adsl-76-202-135-216.dsl.lgvwtx.sbcglobal.net 76.235.235.3 adsl-76-235-235-3.dsl.applwi.sbcglobal.net 99.24.30.126 adsl-99-24-30-126.dsl.skt2ca.sbcglobal.net 99.36.221.54 adsl-99-36-221-54.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 99.56.22.38 adsl-99-56-22-38.dsl.hstntx.sbcglobal.net 99.64.223.246 adsl-99-64-223-246.dsl.stl2mo.sbcglobal.net 99.111.46.195 adsl-99-111-46-195.dsl.kntpin.sbcglobal.net 108.193.239.68 adsl-108-193-239-68.dsl.sndg02.sbcglobal.net 108.210.134.70 adsl-108-210-134-70.dsl.wlfrct.sbcglobal.net And Cox customers: 68.15.172.92 wsip-68-15-172-92.no.no.cox.net 70.165.70.251 wsip-70-165-70-251.hr.hr.cox.net 70.168.33.228 wsip-70-168-33-228.om.om.cox.net 70.168.192.44 wsip-70-168-192-44.br.br.cox.net 72.214.51.94 wsip-72-214-51-94.hr.hr.cox.net 72.215.158.10 wsip-72-215-158-10.hr.hr.cox.net 184.180.176.180 wsip-184-180-176-180.ks.ks.cox.net 184.186.211.103 wsip-184-186-211-103.ok.ok.cox.net And...well, you get the point. ---rsk
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from customers:
<snip lists>
And...well, you get the point.
business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet)
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet)
I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.37 70-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81 cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
Hostnaming is not always straightforward, as there are variations of commercial service (some with static IPs, others with dynamic, some enterprise, branch office, SMB, etc.). FWIW: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net Are all SMB customers. -Jason On 3/2/15, 6:39 AM, "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet)
I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.:
24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.37 70-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81 cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com
Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming.
---rsk
Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC. Owen
On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet)
I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.:
24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.37 70-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81 cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com
Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming.
---rsk
San Jose is most certainly not a pure coax network and is HFC. HSD does mean High Speed Data. On Mar 2, 2015 3:26 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
Not so sure about that…
240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net.
is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely.
I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC.
Owen
On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet)
I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.:
24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.37 70-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net
Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81 cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com
Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming.
---rsk
In article <20150301124846.GA16378@gsp.org> you write:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size. R's, John
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:25 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
In article <20150301124846.GA16378@gsp.org> you write:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size.
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size.
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking. R's, John
On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size.
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking.
R's, John
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it. Owen
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking.
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try to send mail directly since you're sharing your IP range with the usual array of botted Windows boxes and hacked Wordpress servers, so recipients are unlikely to accept it. R's, John
On Mar 1, 2015, at 17:58 , John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking.
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try to send mail directly since you're sharing your IP range with the usual array of botted Windows boxes and hacked Wordpress servers, so recipients are unlikely to accept it.
R's, John
I don’t disagree. I use static IPs, I just don’t get them from Comcast. I use Comcast as an L2 substrate for my GRE tunnels where I run BGP with my real providers. Owen
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked to at Comcast and T-W as recently as a week ago. I can believe that they have configuration problems on a networks of that size.
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and generaly no blocking.
R's, John
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I still keep hoping for some way to buy an ipv6/48 from them. Being dynamically renumbered all the time is a PITA, and yet, when comcast's ipv6 works - it is GREAT. I had huge amounts of nat pressure from dns traffic simply vanish once I switched my dns servers over to their ipv6 (and deployed dnssec and got back NXDOMAIN)
Owen
-- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there aren't more that do.
In article <54F3D78A.5080009@satchell.net> you write:
On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there aren't more that do.
The tiny telco owned DSL ISP here gives you a static IP if you call them up and ask for one. Otherwise you're double-NAT-ed. I switched to cable since their top speed was 6 megabits, even through I'm two blocks from the CO. They said I can have fiber if I pay for them to string it from the CO to my house. Uh, no. R's, John
On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam from Comcast customers: fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run mail servers from their locations. The list of IPs certainly looked commercial. Jason
On 03/01/2015 01:44 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business customer links.
Correct as far as Charter goes. Particularly for people with dedicated IP addresses, as I do. I can't speak for DHCP address space.
On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else. There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote: [...] the documents public, which they haven't yet.
The rules themselves are public. The area of uncertainty is whether the Report and Order will pull in more rules than just the newly published 47CFR§8. For instance, there's 47CFR§6 which deal with 'telecommunications' carriers and the ADA. But as far as net neutrality is concerned, the actual rules dealing with the gist of it are embodied in 47CFR§8 "Preserving the Open Internet." Link to the eCFR page on it was posted elsewhere on the list.
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 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
...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
On 02/28/2015 09:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service. Classic FCC wordsmithing, and seems to cover the DoS case nicely when you look through the rest of §8 for instances of the term 'reasonable network management.' Yes, it is amorphous, ambiguous, and all those things regulations usually are. (Like being up for interpretation.) It remains to be seen whether §8 will survive appeal.
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 khelms@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 <bhm@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. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
-- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:24:54 -0500, Bruce H McIntosh <bhm@ufl.edu> said: >> 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?" :) Over here we have some kind of an "answer" to that question... And it's not a very good one... -- /"\ | William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | School of Informatics X against HTML e-mail | University of Edinburgh / \ (still going) | http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh <bhm@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?" :)
Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not breaking the law, e.g. not distributing pirated materials or being used for other illegal activity. If a site is breaking the law, they can block it.
Any website which does not violate the law. In other words, if a lawful takedown order has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site. Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper@gmail.com> 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?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
Any website which does not violate the law.
In other words, if a lawful takedown order
So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right? mh
has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site.
Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper@gmail.com> 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?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
To the best of my knowledge, yes. Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:08 , Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr> wrote:
Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
Any website which does not violate the law.
In other words, if a lawful takedown order
So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right?
mh
has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site.
Owen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson <weaselkeeper@gmail.com> 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?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
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 procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc). Note that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
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
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote: precedent (whether said document is a NAL, NOV, or R&O 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.
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
What's a "lawful" web site?
Paragraphs 304 and 305 in today's released R&O address some of this. The wording 'Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content' is pretty good, and covers what the Commission wanted to cover.
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:48:31 -0400 From: lowen@pari.edu To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content (was:Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality)
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
What's a "lawful" web site?
Paragraphs 304 and 305 in today's released R&O address some of this. The wording 'Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful content' is pretty good, and covers what the Commission wanted to cover.
More then website blocking I've been wondering what this means for spam prevention?
On 03/12/2015 04:58 PM, Donald Kasper wrote:
More then website blocking I've been wondering what this means for spam prevention?
That's a pretty interesting thought, and it is pretty well addressed by paragraphs 376, 377, and 378. Basically, the FCC found that spam blocking is a separate add-on information service. It may be that the consumer now must opt-in to that service after clear disclosure of what the service entails. The FCC even found that DNS is not an information service (paragraphs 366-371), and the argument is compelling. This Commission is not technically illiterate, that's for sure, whether you agree with the R&O or not.
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! Today's altruistic intentions... is a DIFFERENT ISSUE (though still important.. and I find much of their wording very open-ended... lots of "reasonables" in there.. and lots of possible protections or legal things that are EXTREMELY abusive... yet still universally considered legal!) To use an extreme example, if a democratically elected chief executive of a republic self-appointed himself a dictator-for-life, and stated that he would use those powers to imprison those who engage in human trafficking... would you really cheerleader him for fighting human trafficking and call his new authority a good thing? 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. -- Rob McEwen +1 478-475-9032
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 R&O, likely with multiple paragraphs explaining why each of those enumerated sections of 47 USC apply here. Commission R&O'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 R&O 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......
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
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 the future.
FCC Commissioners are appointed, confirmed by the Senate, and have five year terms. Accountability here is from all three branches of the government, as it is possible to sue the FCC.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 11:29 , Rob McEwen <rob@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 broadband oligopolies with the FCC (for once) siding with the consumer.
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!)”
FCC officials (as you call them) are political appointees. They do have accountability in that if the executive administration doesn’t like what they do, they’re out. Their regulatory authority is limited to that authority granted to them by congress. If future generations are going to judge us for federal power grabs, I’m betting this won’t be the one they pick. First, I don’t see this as a power grab. Second, even if it were such a thing, it so starkly pales in comparison to the actions of DHS, BATFE, TSA, NSA, FBI, et. al. under the auspices of the USAPATRIOT act and supreme court rulings like Citizens United that I cannot imagine it will even make it onto their radar screen. Owen
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-bounces@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
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 R&O 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 R&O will be interesting. Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional regulatory process to occur in recent memory. Owen
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-bounces@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 R&O 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 R&O will be interesting.
Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional regulatory process to occur in recent memory.
Owen
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 AT&T 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-bounces@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 R&O 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 R&O will be interesting.
Overall, I think this may well be the first (mostly) functional regulatory process to occur in recent memory.
Owen
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
"(3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet to another access points." But they can't. That's the point. There is a massive dearth of legitimate competition in the broadband space for the vast majority of our population. And it's that lack of competition that has allowed Comcast et al to become the abusive bad actors they are. We're not replacing the ISPs with the Government. We're saying, in effect, that in exchange for government monopolies allowing you to become as big and profitable as you are, you now have to be slightly less douchy than you have been. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
On 2/27/2015 12:49 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
This case seems to prove that the telco/cable duopoly can't _always_ buy the FCC rulings they desire; every now and then, the US govt surprises us and actually represents the people.
I know that ISPs are not perfect. Nothing is perfect. But what is incredible about this whole debate... is
(1) how few people are actually suffering right now. If "net neutrality" had never made the news... and you went out and talked to 10,000 people, and forced them to sit down and write out their top 100 problems in life... and compiled all 1 million answers... I doubt internet connectivity problems or slow internet speeds would come up more than a few times... if even once!
(2) meanwhile, we're such spoiled brats because... the bandwidth usage per second... AND the total number of users... AND the usage scenarios... AND the amount of hours of usage per day per person... has all SKYROCKETED in the past 15 years. It is AMAZING that the ISPs have kept pace. And this wasn't easy. My business is spam filtering and e-mail hosting... and in that related business... the usage levels per dollar of revenue (literally.. the # of MBs per dollar of revenue) is order of magnitudes higher than it was 15 years ago... and, like others, I've had to do amazing things to keep things flowing well with the same basic $/user. (getting faster hardware wasn't even nearly enough) That wasn't easy.
(3) when ISPs abuse their power, consumers can vote with their wallet to another access points. Yes, the choices are somewhat limited, but there are CHOICES (including 4G).. and, btw, there would have been MORE choices if the economy wasn't continuing to be anemic over the past several years. In contrast, when the government abuses their power, it is MUCH harder to move to another country. Plus, a bad ISP can only make someone's life so miserable. But an out-of-control government that has too much power can fine you, imprison you, IRS audit you, over-regulate you, legally (and illegally) spy on you, etc. (Just merely defining private networks as if they were "public airways"... is already a huge potential 4th amendment violation... why stop with cables moving data? Why not just make your hard drive... or your files in your filing cabnet part of their jurisdiction, too? Can they vote that in too? If you think not, tell me... what is stopping them that applies DIFFERENTLY from what they just did?)
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
-- Rob McEwen
-- 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved. Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce H McIntosh" <bhm@ufl.edu> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:03:35 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality On 2015-02-27 11:45, Mike Hammett wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved. Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
In article <11287607.8005.1425056798993.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you write:
More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download.
It's more complicated than that. On cable systems, all of the upstream traffic has to contend for the available space, sort of like classic Ethernet. The faster you try to go, the more you lose to contention. With ADSL, there's only so much bandwidth per pair, and I doubt many users would want less download speed. There's also little reason to expect that many home users want symmetrical access. We weenies are atypical. Your normal broadband user watches video (which would better be sent as actual video over the cable, but that's a separate argument) and futzes with Facebook or Snapchat or the groovy app du jour. It's all mostly downstream traffic. R's, John
On 27/Feb/15 19:07, Mike Hammett wrote:
More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download.
But what comes first? I argue users will respond to their network conditions, without even knowing it. I have ADSL at my house. Because I sit on fibre at the office, I always forget that uploading an IOS or Junos image from my house to the data centre works terribly from home, until it hits me. Mark.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:03:35 -0500, Bruce H McIntosh said:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is less conducive to free interchange
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down. And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down. Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to downlink to fit in the available bandwidth. You'd be better off arguing from the basis of protocols and applications that need symmetric bandwidth (for instance, heavy use of Skype and similar, but with HD video - you'll need as big a pipe for your outbound video as you need for the inbound). Similar considerations will apply to at least some gaming models, bittorrent, and so on. You already noted the remote backup issue - keep focusing on that sort of thing.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Ok, I hadn't thought about it from that perspective. The scenario you laid out does make sense.
You'd be better off arguing from the basis of protocols and applications that need symmetric bandwidth (for instance, heavy use of Skype and similar, but with HD video - you'll need as big a pipe for your outbound video as you need for the inbound). Similar considerations will apply to at least some gaming models, bittorrent, and so on. You already noted the remote backup issue - keep focusing on that sort of thing.
Remote backup is the big bugaboo for me, having had 2 SSDs and a couple spinny platters eat themselves in the last year or so. It's a really irksome situation when I can, e.g. backup my entire work machine's /home partition to my home server in, say, X hours, but to back my home workstation's /home partition (a similar amount of cruft) up to the TSM server at work takes 10-15X hours, it makes backing up the home machine remotely (something the wife harps on incessantly after the crashes of last summer :) ) pretty impractical. And yes, I know what "incremental backups" are (TSM, remember? :) ) but jumpstarting that first full backup is a stumbling block to the whole scenario. *sigh* -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship. On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean. It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so. Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician. On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down. And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
Daniel, Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business. Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating
content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50
down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
Scott, Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to use it. I know it is a real pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to work across my VPN. Steve On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating
content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50
down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
On 2/27/2015 1:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
It is my thought that when people ask for symmetrical circuits, they are really saying that they would like to see a higher upload. What they have is too slow for their needs. This is especially true for older technology that isn't in danger of being replaced anytime soon. Ideally, I suspect that most people would prefer a more variable approach, allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for upload and download and any combination in between. Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download frequency to send something quicker. Once it gets past last mile, it is usually symmetric anyways. It's funny to watch someone spend an entire day uploading a video to youtube, though. Reminds me of the dialup days; just more data. Jack
On 02/27/2015 11:49 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
It is my thought that when people ask for symmetrical circuits, they are really saying that they would like to see a higher upload. What they have is too slow for their needs. This is especially true for older technology that isn't in danger of being replaced anytime soon. Ideally, I suspect that most people would prefer a more variable approach, allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for upload and download and any combination in between.
Exactly. Mike
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:49:04PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jbates@paradoxnetworks.net): <snip>
Ideally, I suspect that most people would prefer a more variable approach, allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for upload and download and any combination in between.
What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical last mile. And not that PON shit. The real stuff or bust.
Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download frequency to send something quicker.
Any access technology with less than 1Gbit symmetrical bandwidth is 20th century. Doing greenfield with that is plainly stupid. There is business to be made from smaller upgrades to copper that is in place, but as soon as you dig (or set new poles in the ground), fiber is the only real alternative. -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I like your SNOOPY POSTER!!
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. It's a real world. Things are not always what we want. I'm sorry, but while I could afford the tens of thousands of dollars to run power one mile to my house, I will not be seeing fiber anytime soon. As much as I hate it, looks like wireless point to point for awhile. :( Thinking of HAM radio to perhaps get help if things get really bad.
Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download frequency to send something quicker. Any access technology with less than 1Gbit symmetrical bandwidth is 20th century. Doing greenfield with that is plainly stupid. There is business to be made from smaller upgrades to copper that is in place, but as soon as you dig (or set new poles in the ground), fiber is the only real alternative.
It's hard to get DSL in some places in the country. Fiber? ha! Jack
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 05:25:41PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jbates@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!!
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 | bzs@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*
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate resources. But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today. On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com <mailto:SNaslund@medline.com>> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50
down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
Daniel, We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..." As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the downstream. Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%. It's also important to note that all of these accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps. What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps. What I don't see is an increase in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps. Conversely, increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com> wrote:
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate resources. But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com <mailto:SNaslund@medline.com>> wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu <mailto:Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50
down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level. If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service than is currently available in most neighborhoods. There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market. On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..."
As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the downstream. Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%. It's also important to note that all of these accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.
What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps. What I don't see is an increase in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps. Conversely, increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> wrote:
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate resources. But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>>> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
"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? "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market." Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage than you might think. I don't think there is anything special about symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as downstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com> wrote:
My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.
If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service than is currently available in most neighborhoods.
There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market.
On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..."
As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the downstream. Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%. It's also important to note that all of these accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.
What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps. What I don't see is an increase in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps. Conversely, increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> wrote:
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate resources. But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>>> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
On 02/27/2015 02:53 PM, Scott Helms 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?
Why not 25/25? 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.
"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market."
Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage than you might think. I don't think there is anything special about symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as downstream demand.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> wrote:
My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.
If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service than is currently available in most neighborhoods.
There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market.
On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..."
As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the downstream. Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%. It's also important to note that all of these accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.
What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps. What I don't see is an increase in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps. Conversely, increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>>> wrote:
The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate resources. But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Daniel,
Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this business.
Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> <tel:%28678%29%20507-5000> -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>>>> wrote:
But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so.
Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician.
On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto deployment reality.
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 --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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 --------------------------------
On Feb 27, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
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.
The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for symmetrical speeds. Side note: Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer Bloat? James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for symmetrical speeds.
Side note: Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer Bloat?
James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
On Feb 27, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com> 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.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for symmetrical speeds.
Side note: Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer Bloat?
James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
"the users generally download more than they upload.” may well be true, but is refers to bytes moved, not bytes per second. And, again, what about Buffer Bloat, especially due to considerably slower uplinks? James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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? Mike
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
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
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.
::AWOOOOGAAAA:: 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
::AWOOOOGAAAA:: 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
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
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.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
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 Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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" <dtaylor@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 Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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 Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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.
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" <dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto: dtaylor@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 Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711> <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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" <dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto: dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711> <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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" <dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@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. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>>> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711> <tel:%28612%29235-5711> <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com>> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711> <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com <mailto:dtaylor@vocalabs.com> http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 <tel:%28612%29235-5711>
-- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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.
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 <tim@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.
On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms <khelms@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
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" <aledm@qix.co.uk> To: "Scott Helms" <khelms@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 <khelms@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
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.
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 | bzs@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 khelms@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.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@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?
it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right? there's some chatter that (queue akapella in 3...2....) upstream ack packet loss is actually more detrimental to user experience than downstream packet loss, so maybe more upstream just to protect (and simplify) ack management is helpful?
"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market."
Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage than you might think. I don't think there is anything special about
because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine...
symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as downstream demand.
possibly because the places where this is available are so few and so far-between that 'users' don't generally know or see this? so ... err, they won't know if it's better for their usecases or not.
Chris, "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine..." Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@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?
it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right? there's some chatter that (queue akapella in 3...2....) upstream ack packet loss is actually more detrimental to user experience than downstream packet loss, so maybe more upstream just to protect (and simplify) ack management is helpful?
"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market."
Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage than you might think. I don't think there is anything special about
because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine...
symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as downstream demand.
possibly because the places where this is available are so few and so far-between that 'users' don't generally know or see this? so ... err, they won't know if it's better for their usecases or not.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Chris,
"because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine..."
Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert
hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?
to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play... my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes. Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well. -chris
"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?" Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. That's kind of my point. Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the same service for less. Either would result in more people using that kind of service. Imagine what *might *be possible if direct communication would work without port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood. "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..." That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products) "my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes. Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well." It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get around it to a certain extent. Session border controllers cost tens of thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Chris,
"because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a server also work just fine..."
Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert
hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?
to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play...
my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes.
Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.
-chris
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. That's kind of my point.
I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(
Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the
I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.
same service for less. Either would result in more people using that kind of service.
this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.
Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.
I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me). also I have ipv6, so i have open access directly to my internal network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC and ...)
"no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)
you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)
"my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes.
Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."
It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get around it to a certain extent. Session border controllers cost tens of thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.
folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed. You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6. Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up. -chris
"I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(" Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing? "I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong." I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers just to handle session state. 15% is probably underestimating the costs, but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise. "this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful." Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it easy. "I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).' Wait, are you really running Windows ME???? "folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed. You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6." You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies. Both are hard and expensive, but to completely different groups. This is why Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT services want the carriers to deploy IPv6. It's also why the carriers have been less than enthusiastic. They get the bulk of the cost while others get the bulk of the benefits. "Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up." No, it's not. SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT. Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was). I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will go down and more people will choose to use it. That's kind of my point.
I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(
Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the
I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.
same service for less. Either would result in more people using that kind of service.
this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.
Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.
I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).
also I have ipv6, so i have open access directly to my internal network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC and ...)
"no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)
you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)
"my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable transport option, and the clients won't make AAAA queries so my AAAA is a wasted dns few bytes.
Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."
It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get around it to a certain extent. Session border controllers cost tens of thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.
folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed.
You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6.
Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up.
-chris
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
"I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution. I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :("
Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?
no, what I'm saying is I don't think price sensitivity is the thing that moves folk from backup or not. (but again, this is all a red herring anyway)
"I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong."
I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers just to handle session state. 15% is probably underestimating the costs, but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise.
great, no citation... rsync -f /etc/rsyncd.conf problem solved. (well, wrap a shell script to re-create that config as you add/remove users)
"this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful."
Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it easy.
"I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).'
Wait, are you really running Windows ME????
I also don't actually play Angband.
"folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks that don't already have v6 deployed.
You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6."
You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies. Both are hard and expensive, but to completely different groups. This is why Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT services want the carriers to deploy IPv6. It's also why the carriers have been less than enthusiastic. They get the bulk of the cost while others get the bulk of the benefits.
actually I think folk want ipv6 because it'll be more stable and reliable and permit the same fast growth of the network and services. Also, don't confuse CGN with home-nat.
"Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so that's a fine red herring you've also brought up."
No, it's not. SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT. Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed
they also can't connect with their peers in a sane fashion. I suppose if they didn't want any of their customers to talk outside the singular service they could avoid sbcs as well... I think there are other things than SBC devices which are capable of making sip work too in the face of NAT. -chris
On 2/27/2015 3:21 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert to make that work. Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
Chris meant to say, "insert game console shooting game here". As a side note, most of my DDOS attacks on end-users these days are due to game console pissing matches rather than forum/irc. Jack
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@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.
"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an indication of an unhealthy market."
Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage than you might think. I don't think there is anything special about
NAT is not that big an issue any more because everything from game server to backup software can deal with it. No need to re-invent the wheel to get around NAT. In fact, for backups it is completely a non-issue since there is going to be a client initiating the data push to a cloud server.
symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as downstream demand.
Of course, upstream bandwidth will increase but downstream will increase as much or I would suspect even more. It is very simple to explain. A song is uploaded to iTunes once and downloaded millions of times. An HD movie is upload once and view many times. Essentially whether it is music, video, web content, or any other media, it is normally an upload once download many operation. I am not saying that sometimes a residential user's traffic is not symmetric (Skype calls etc.) from time to time. It is just not what most residential users are concentrated on. As soon as people become more interested in high upload speeds, the market will react. In fact, most carriers would love a more symmetric user to user environment because most carrier backbones have to be very over-engineered based on traffic toward the consumer. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@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 Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtaylor@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711
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 | bzs@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 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
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 ISPs having something in their TOS about not hosting servers. It's been so long, I thought that perhaps I might be remembering wrong.
You remember correctly. How cable companies "enforced" this particular ToS clause would very, but one tactic was to have short DHCP leases, and guaranteee that the IP address would change at lease "renewal". To counter, we got third-party Dynamic DNS service which would allow a cable customer to periodically update the IP address of a domain, with a short TTL so that a change would take effect immediately. The other side of this: cable DNS servers would, on its own dime, cache DNS lookups with week-long TTLs to thwart Dynamic DNS. It was quite a war there for a while. (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 internal network]. I still don't know whether to buy that or not, and now it's moot.) 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 the old addresses and new addresses for a week. When the cable DNS servers finally aged out the old addresses, we could shut down the old ones. Royal admin pain in the neck. Dunno if this is still true anymore.
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 the old addresses and new addresses for a week. When the cable DNS servers finally aged out the old addresses, we could shut down the old ones. Royal admin pain in the neck.
Actually, until Windows 98 finally died (perhaps ME?), I always did at least a week as windows 98 did not expire its local cache. Things were usually good after a week because windows 98 boxes tended to crash by then. I still allow several days for moves between servers, though. Never know what people are doing that they shouldn't.:) Jack
On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> 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 internal network]. I still don't know whether to buy that or not, and now it's moot.)
Who was the late-90s ISP that had their "geek" mouthing off on TV about them having "multiple T3's to the Internet" ??? It was a very well done commercial. I remember having a good laugh at how it parodied both ends of the "internet pipe" of the time. --lyndon
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" <bzs@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 | bzs@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 February 28, 2015 at 16:50 nanog@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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 | bzs@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 | bzs@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*
Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps.
Noooo, 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 they knew the direction of packets would be based on the need to deliver content. But Byte transfer caps (not bandwidth) were based on the high throughput limits of the C.O. and headend gear together with a marketers ability to over selling to a consumer. Bob Evans
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 don't pick on them. 3. Who cares? The businesses kept us busy during the day and the residential kept us busy at night. The backhaul from the CO is not the issue, it is the cost of the upstream services which we have to buy on a 24/7 basis.
That's all this was about.
It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc.
Of course it is. Anyone who was an ISP knows that their customers were all about download speeds and whomever could offer the fastest downloads for the lowest price wins the customer. Since the dawn of the ISP, it has been about download speed as the user's number one priority. Anyone remember the modem wars (the competing 56k standards)? It was all about speed and still is. In my opinion, there are only four factors that make an ISP successful at selling customers or not. SPEED, COST, RELIABILITY, REACH. In that order. Speed they see every day, all day. Cost they see once a month. Reliability is something they don't think about until they have an outage. Reach allows you to service a customer or not, it also allows you to achieve an economy of scale where you can make money.
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.
Of course there are upper bounds. The point is that to make the upper bound as painless to the user as possible. I happen to hate NAT but most users just don't care about it or even know what it is. I have yet to see a service provider advertise that they offer the fastest UPSTREAM bandwidth of any other provider. That tells me that the average user just does not care. I don't believe for a minute that traffic is becoming more symmetric. For every new social media site or backup service, there is a new streaming media provider in pro sports or a new video technology (like 4K or even 8K UHDTV) service that just crushes any upstream you can come up with. Do you really believe that users creating content will EVER come close to the explosion that UHDTV with create in the opposite direction?
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).
Are we talking about phones or Internet service here? Business and residential phone service are different tariffs. Residential tariffs and business tariffs are priced differently because the State utility boards try to keep residential service cheap as possible and use the business side service to subsidize the residential users. Telcos were not early in offering Internet services. Their early offerings were ISDN, Switched 56, and T-1 service. All of those services did not offer "Internet" service. They acted as a data pipe that you or your service provider leased to get your premise to your ISP. The Telco could not have cared less what data you pushed over the line which was really a point-to-point pipe. In fact, early ISPs gamed the Telcos a bit since we were using ISDN services and phone lines in ways that they were never intended to be used. Keeping an ISDN circuit nailed up 24/7 for a usage charge of 10 cents per month (5 cents per B channel call) was not what was they expected and we know the phone network was not designed with people nailing up phone lines 24/7 with data calls. Once the LECs started getting into the Internet business, they had to find a way to fit their services into the existing tariff structure. Not because they wanted to but because the State commissions required them to do so. If you think it took the LECs a long time to react to the Internet, it took the States even longer. When we became a CLEC to offer DSL services, we had to publish a tariff which the State pretty much ignored completely. When Ameritech (begot SBC, begot AT&T again) publishes a tariff it is a huge political football that everyone wants to play with. Here is a synopsis of ISP vs LEC history. ADSL kind of forced the tariff issue since they were running data service over an existing phone line that was already tariffed meaning the service had to be tariffed as well. 1. First we hosed them by nailing their phone lines and ISDN circuits 24/7 and they LECs lost a ton on it. 2. They hosed us by making it almost impossible to access the copper infrastructure. 3. The telecom act allowed us to hose them back by giving us access to a large amount of the LEC infrastructure with little or no capital investment in their construction. DSL exploded. So did the number of ISPs competing for the same customers. Some owned their own equipment and backbone. Lots of others bought access from wholesalers are were nothing more than marketing and sales engines. 4. The ISPs ate each other up in a race to the bottom trying to offer DSL service for $9.95 a month (remember Northpoint wholesaling DSL service to anyone wanting to call themselves an ISP). 5. The LEC finally got a clue and together with the cable providers killed off the traditional ISP by offering the same services over their existing infrastructure with less overhead. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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
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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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 <nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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 <nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 12:14 AM, Michael Thomas <mike@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.
You're off on this. When PacketCable 1.0 was in development and it's early deployment there were no OTT VOIP providers of note. Vonage at that time was trying sell their services to the MSOs and only when that didn't work or did they start going directly to consumers via SIP. The prioritization mechanisms in PacketCable exist because the thought was that they were needed to compete with POTS and that's it and at that time, when upstreams were more contended that was probably the case. On Feb 28, 2015 7:15 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@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 <nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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 <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net <mailto:clayton@mnsi.net>> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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" <mike@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" <mike@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 <nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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 <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net <mailto:clayton@mnsi.net>> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 | bzs@TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs@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*
You mean CableLabs? On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@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" <mike@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" <mike@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 <nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
You mean CableLabs?
Yes. Mike
On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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 <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@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" <clayton@mnsi.net <mailto:clayton@mnsi.net>> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 | bzs@TheWorld.com <mailto:bzs@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 February 28, 2015 at 17:20 nanog@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. Doesn't seem like the basis for a good business plan tho obviously it's more complicated than that IRL. Maybe there are enough people with 10+mb/s upload speeds today to make a go of such a business, uploading a TB in 18 hrs might be within reason as one doesn't do that often assuming some sort of incremental backup. Until download speeds approximated video speed I'd imagine few people used streaming video, so NetFlix mailed DVD's via USPS. etc.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Zekelman" <clayton@mnsi.net> To: "Barry Shein" <bzs@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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.
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.
On 28-Feb-15 21:55, Barry Shein wrote:
On February 28, 2015 at 17:20 nanog@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 K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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" <mike@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
+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 <khelms@zcorum.com> 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.
On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, "Michael Thomas" <mike@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@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 <bzs@world.std.com <mailto:bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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" <mike@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" <mike@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 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
On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 | bzs@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*
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 <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton@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 <bzs@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 | bzs@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 | bzs@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 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
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
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
On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 nick@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 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? 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. 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? Anyhow, *DSL is falling so far behind it's difficult to analyze what could have been.
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. But of course they weren't happy with those few who found ways to use a lot of bandwidth but I thought we weren't talking about the few.
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.
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. But in the beginning these were ways to forcibly distinguish residential from more expensive commercial service. "Forcibly" as in not polling actual usage such as for lots of port 80/443 connections inbound or checking postal addresses for residential vs business as telcos used to do for voice service, etc. Maybe "passively" is a better term. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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*
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 SDSL is a bps that you can’t use for downstream. Usually in 128kbps chunks. So, for example, if you have a line that will support ADSL/VDSL at 1536/768, it can also work at 2048/256 or 1280/1024. For SDSL, you’d get a maximum of 1152/1152 on that same line. Looking at my usage patterns, 1536/768 is probably the best balance. However, I’d bet that the vast majority of residential users would be happier with 2048/256 than 1536/768. I know that 1152/1152 definitely wouldn’t be desirable in my case or in most cases. Now, as speeds get higher and the downstream speed starts to be adequate or exceed adequate, getting close to symmetry looks more appealing because stealing from the downstream channel to provide faster uploads on the occasions when the traffic pattern shifts is less painful most of the time. Still, that doesn’t mean that symmetrical is the best choice in all cases.
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.
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.
And, indeed, it is even at the large end of the spectrum, even today. A 100Mbps circuit will cost you a little more than 10% of a 1G circuit. A 1G circuit will cost a little more than 10% of a 10G circuit, etc. Oddly, however, at the residential side, this often is inverse. Often, a 10M service will cost you less than 1/2 of a 20M service which is again significantly less than 1/2 the price of a 50M service. For example: 10M/1M $45/month 20M/5M $120/month 50M/10M $300/month I don’t know if this is still an accurate reflection of any actual provider’s pricing, but it is adequately exemplary of several that are out there today. Owen
On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein <bzs@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
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
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" <mfidelman@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
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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@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
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" <mfidelman@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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@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
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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> <mailto:mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@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
In article <54F32F1A.9090201@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
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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net <mailto:mfidelman@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
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" <mfidelman@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 | bzs@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*
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" <bzs@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" <mfidelman@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 | bzs@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*
Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you were asserting. From: Scott Helms <khelms@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" <bzs@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" <mfidelman@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 | bzs@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 | bzs@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*
/em shrug I can't help it if you don't like real world data. On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what you were asserting.
From: Scott Helms <khelms@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" <bzs@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" <mfidelman@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 | bzs@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 | bzs@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*
From: Scott Helms <khelms@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" <bzs@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 | bzs@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, 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 <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
From: Scott Helms <khelms@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" <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
Not a problem, the discussion was getting a bit out of hand so misunderstandings are unsuprising. Thank you for adding your expertise and experiences. -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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* From: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
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 <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
From: Scott Helms <khelms@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" <bzs@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 | bzs@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*
<div dir=3D"ltr">Barry,<div><br></div><div>First, I want to apologize.=C2= =A0 I (badly) misread your email, but in case I should not have responded t= hat way.=C2=A0 I would have gotten this out sooner, but I was traveling bac= k from the CableLabs conference.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Se= cond, my assertion is simply that Usenet servers aren't automagically s= ymmetrical in their bandwidth usage and that trying to build a system off o= f NNTP so that each broadband subscriber became in effect a Usenet server w= ouldn't work well without significant modifications.</div><div><br></di= v><div>Third, if anyone cares the Usenet server we ran was <a href=3D"http:= //news.america.net">news.america.net</a></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_ext= ra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">= <div><br></div>Scott Helms <br>Vice President of Technology <br>ZCorum <br>(678) 507-5000 <br>-------------------------------- <br><a href=3D"http://twitter.com/kscotthelms" target=3D"_blank">http://twi= tter.com/kscotthelms</a> <br>--------------------------------=C2=A0<br></div></div></div> <br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Barry Shein = <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:bzs@world.std.com" target=3D"_blank= ">bzs@world.std.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo= te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
<br> From: Scott Helms <<a href=3D"mailto:khelms@zcorum.com">khelms@zcorum.co= m</a>><br> ><br> >/em shrug<br> ><br> >I can't help it if you don't like real world data.<br> >On Mar 3, 2015 2:25 PM, "Barry Shein" <<a href=3D"mailto:b= zs@world.std.com">bzs@world.std.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> >><br> >> Ok, then I no longer have any confidence that I understand what yo= u<br> >> were asserting.<br> <br> Generally when someone says they don't understand me I assume it's = my<br> fault for not being clear and try to clarify.<br> <br> Apparently you prefer to be rude.<br> <br> *Plonk*<br> <span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br> --<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 -Barry Shein<br> <br> The World=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | bzs@TheWorld.co= m=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0| <a href=3D"http://www.TheWorld.= com" target=3D"_blank">http://www.TheWorld.com</a><br> Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 | D= ial-Up: US, PR, Canada<br> Software Tool & Die=C2=A0 =C2=A0 | Public Access Internet=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0| SINCE 1989=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0*oo*<br> </font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
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" <mfidelman@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
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... 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 all can move on, and all have way better networks. Anyone here *making linux based CPE*, can merely update their code to something modern, containing these algorithms. Backports are possible, but so far, I have been quite depressed by the overall buggy results I have seen from the home router makers attempting to so. All the streamboost products I have tested are defective in some respect or another - so I am back to recommending people just reflash their firmware ("friends don't let friends run factory firmware") with something readily available and good off of openwrt's unbelievable large list. https://downloads.openwrt.org/snapshots/trunk/ I have a fondness for the ar71xx products as those generally have the best drivers (ath9k) for wifi. I know full well, that Linux does not rule the world (yet), and most of my ire these days is aimed at those that are not paying attention or helping fix their crappy systems. While half of the solution - codel - is already available as patches to at least one BSD version... I am still waiting patiently for someone to code up a version of fq_codel for BSD. fq_codel was written in a single saturday afternoon, and mainlined in the next week - and despite trying, we have been unable to come up with anything more than marginally better. I have been reluctant to do that port personally as transliterating from GPL to BSD is something that someone else should do, based on the IETF internet draft we produced. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoeiland-joergensen-aqm-fq-codel-01 We (on the codel or bloat email lists) will gladly review patches and performance data, however. If you are stuck with older gear that can't be updated, perhaps you can apply HFSC + SFQ which works pretty well at lower bandwidths, but has problems that I documented here: http://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/cerowrt/wiki/Wondershaper_Must_Die As for fixing your interconnects - or any other places you have *any* bufferbloat and/or bad latency - the fq_codel algorithm is incredibly light-weight, and works at 10GE and above. (software rate shaping, not so much) Netperf-wrapper also scales to 10GigE. In fact, it is being used to test stuff running at 40GigE. Most other tools for testing for bandwidth and latency, start showing erroneous results above 20Mbit. I too would like asymmetric networks to behave better, but these are the best tools we got to fix what we have. Go forth, test, and deploy! A plea: please stop debating about policy and just deploy s**t that works. [1] Quite a few bits of DSL firmware are a problem. The only truly "perfect" DSL firmware I know of is in free.fr's revolution v6 router - which was deployed august, 2012 - with a DRR + fq_codel based implementation that works *really well* at line rate, whatever it is - no software shaping required. On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:40 AM, Aled Morris <aledm@qix.co.uk> wrote:
On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein <bzs@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.
I agree totally with this sentiment - if we had symmetric edge networks, we would have come up with ways to use them. offsite backup would be a lot more common, in particular.
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
-- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote:
On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 nick@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
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
On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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
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 <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@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
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
On March 1, 2015 at 16:13 nick@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote:
On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote:
On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 nick@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 servers were discouraged was that they used more resources, you weren't just reading your email you were running Amazon! That wasn't sustainable for $20/month and billing for actual metered usage was a PITA for other reasons. So you said ok, it's $XX per month, no metering, but here's how we're going to make it nearly impossible for you to run Amazon off your cheap link: Asymmetrical, NAT, bandwidth caps, port blocking, etc. ********* BUT WHAT WAS THE POINT? ******************* Not to do internet archaeology. It was originally just making a point that asymmetrical service was kind of a hack, a kludge, something driven by limited resources and early attempts at market differentiation, and not inherently desirable as a future. I didn't bring that up I just agreed. It's not even clear what asymmetric service in those terms means in a world where you'll be offered 100/25mbps or 100/50mbps links, that's a far cry from 1m/256kb links. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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*
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
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
On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@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
-----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 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 :-) I still don't get why operators do this. In my part of the world, a well-known service provider runs FTTC and then runs VDSL into the home. Ummh... In a previous country I used to work, a network had copper lines deployed as internal last mile in every building they serviced on the back of some MSAN's. When they upgraded their basement infrastructure to fibre, they thought they could get away from having to run fibre to each office/home in the building by delivering that over VDSL. For some reason, even at 6m distances, running the HD-based IPTv service across VDSL didn't work. I think the engineers in that network didn't even bother wasting their time fixing that. In the end, running fibre from the basement to each office/home did the trick - it's not like they were starving... In 2000, a big mobile carrier in an East African country was just about the first network to build Metro fibre that hit lots of commercial buildings. What did they do it with - run E1's for voice. This was their fixed-line solution at the time. Why they didn't run Ethernet instead (in 2000, when the rest of East Africa barely knew what Metro-E was, let alone many parts of the world) escapes me. If it's not fibre to the home or office gateway, where it makes no difference to run either copper or fibre from the basement or the curb, it's foolish. Mark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU8nDwAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+GyAkQALGw6GKKzQ7FvUM1h7gGyMsz TY7PaCexzAHBYYV/Wgq/oJxBKoj0CCwQZwy1krA6R1xuSDlueuUqxBc153wAZKUm P3lI23bIG/IdSVi0LnjU84oM/06Q0mK7nwHAR7LGcHIdZaBrffXnVMh99eZGp0pN AHh7q2AadUHnxDSwyNXU571E9LgsZ2fIrr4ZM3BP/L510X1Fs0TWmftXjOPX7Bc3 DjJfFCWpHr/AIFVEdgq40Nwexk4HzknsUoGthm3yMykv3LQ+vqdVodCZuly0tLbs q6YbWntv+d2fsNwDDkUowY4bOZoJXiM2qngvBXmN6dMmp3AymtlZC6x+iJusgdly g3iwMNSgh4Sab2Gtdb24AvPpVNx6NkE28QUGTPvtSweUAf7IMUog3Ax8XZcJws57 toi2UJ9Q3nXFN6XyzKMvCUrVwAnZkJcP3pDdFFRB5p4Bqa+ZyZAlWii1bXVXF68r QMDL5Oj1QaaAv4tK31zd8T6E+rHnvbn+TQ7mXx626/fF8O6KKjWcD9z1WiouEKCX kIq0InQeI9BCxpuSrfvQSH+nWn/Sw40sedoU4VlPOipaUwGa5nju/rmNcDP0evP4 2JprZSCrahMJko82JPxdwOPzl80Jv+0N/ofw571JHmWv+mmwqsN++lpvzSg2XaoT P8fH+p+lz9wDvW7NfIvZ =uFe1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Folks, Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Hardened carrier grade Ethernet gear appeared quite a time after PON gear did and until we got gear that could be deployed in cabinets the cost of the fiber plant being back hauled to the CO was much more expensive. Google decided to do GPON purely because of cost, they really wanted to do Active Ethernet but the economics didn't work out. "Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges." Only if we're talking about Ethernet, your WiFi network is almost never symmetrical. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric. Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start thinking more dynamic when they build their protocols where possible. Passive splitters obviously have the limitation of limiting frequencies, but our xDSL technologies and cable technologies do not have the restriction to my knowledge. Future protocols ideally would have a signaling band, recognition of frequency support bidirectionally and perhaps support dynamic allocation of those channels as-needed. If an end node is saturating the upload but not using the download, why shouldn't the system shift the frequency usage? If only 10mb/s is being used out of a 50mb/s circuit for download, why not allow that extra capacity to be used for upload, temporarily shifting it's direction? My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything? For that matter, is there a reason we don't dynamically adjust frequencies on Ethernet? My servers would definitely love 1.8gb/s transmit since they receive very little. Jack
On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything?
That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL. When you get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control, whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe (just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the stream. Other technologies have their quirks, too...
Stephen is dead on here. In DOCSIS the downstream communication happens in one or more normal cable TV channel band, ie 6MHz channels from 54 MHz to 890MHz. The upstreams will be (in most cases) either 1.6 MHz, 3.2 MHz, or 6.4MHz wide and in the 5-42 MHz range. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything?
That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL. When you get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control, whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe (just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the stream.
Other technologies have their quirks, too...
Even so, what makes the channel assignments static? If the downstream bands are sitting idle, why can't they be reallocated for use by modems needing to send more? Or, presuming upstream isolation between modems, why can't multiple channels be dynamically allocated to a modem when there is availability and need? I'm not arguing how it is. Just saying. Why can't we do more? GMPLS shows we can get really annoying in our ability to automate in dynamic provisioning. I'd think fixing something like DOCSIS would be a cakewalk in comparison. Sorry, I'm just a network guy that plays with routers and servers. I expect more out of the geniuses that make stuff for me to play with. Jack On 2/27/2015 4:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Stephen is dead on here. In DOCSIS the downstream communication happens in one or more normal cable TV channel band, ie 6MHz channels from 54 MHz to 890MHz. The upstreams will be (in most cases) either 1.6 MHz, 3.2 MHz, or 6.4MHz wide and in the 5-42 MHz range.
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything? That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL. When you get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control, whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe (just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the stream.
Other technologies have their quirks, too...
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.
I agree, most homes are not symmetric, the two biggest services are cable modem and DSL which are usually asymmetric.
Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start thinking more dynamic when they build their protocols where possible. Passive splitters obviously have the limitation of limiting frequencies, but our xDSL technologies and cable technologies do not have the restriction to my >knowledge. Future protocols ideally would have a signaling band, recognition of frequency support bidirectionally and perhaps support dynamic allocation of >those channels as-needed.
If an end node is saturating the upload but not using the download, why shouldn't the system shift the frequency usage? If only 10mb/s is being used out of >a 50mb/s circuit for download, why not allow that extra capacity to be used for upload, temporarily shifting it's direction?
You could do that. The only issue is that you are putting in more intelligent CPE that has to be frequency agile and signal to the head end what is happening. Carriers are very sensitive to CPE costs so I don't think that is likely to happen especially since I think that DSL is not considered leading edge service any more. I would expect the carriers to devote more effort to FTTP efforts than to keep trying to advance DSL.
My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s with >20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s upstream >and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading anything?
Again, not a technical problem. It is a CPE intelligence and cost issue. Unless a whole lot of customers want that, the money is not going to be spent to support that.
For that matter, is there a reason we don't dynamically adjust frequencies on Ethernet? My servers would definitely love 1.8gb/s transmit since they receive >very little.
Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be done but it would not be Ethernet anymore. If you want to talk both ways on the same pair, that is half duplex, we've left that idea in the dust years ago. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 2/27/2015 4:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
You could do that. The only issue is that you are putting in more intelligent CPE that has to be frequency agile and signal to the head end what is happening. Carriers are very sensitive to CPE costs so I don't think that is likely to happen especially since I think that DSL is not considered leading edge service any more. I would expect the carriers to devote more effort to FTTP efforts than to keep trying to advance DSL.
More intelligence in the chip that drives the connection. The CPE is generally wrapping around that chip. FTTP sounds great, but it just isn't appropriate in every scenario.
Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be done but it would not be Ethernet anymore. If you want to talk both ways on the same pair, that is half duplex, we've left that idea in the dust years ago. S
I don't mean to argue, as I am by no means an expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1000Base-T is 4 pairs bidirectional. Wikipedia may have lied to me, though. My presumption is that anything supporting bidirectional communication on shared media can somehow shift that communication from symmetric to asymmetric dynamically. Jack
Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be done but it would not be Ethernet anymore. If you want to talk both ways on the same pair, that is half duplex, we've left that idea in the dust years ago. S
I don't mean to argue, as I am by no means an expert, but I'm pretty sure that 1000Base-T is 4 pairs bidirectional. Wikipedia may have lied to me, though. My >presumption is that anything supporting bidirectional communication on shared media can somehow shift that communication from symmetric to asymmetric >dynamically.
No you are correct that when you are talking about 1000Base-T you are talking about four pairs bidirectionally which is a departure from 10 and 100 mbps Ethernet. That does not change the fact though that it is a baseband technology. You can't dynamically change that and still call it Ethernet. You are free to invent a new standard but it would be hard to do that given that 10G is available for those feeling pain at 1G. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.
Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on a home network, not the connection to the outside world. Last time I looked, commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network attached storage, media servers, that sort of thing. (Come to think of it, though, I've never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is symmetric.) Miles -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.
Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on a home network, not the connection to the outside world. Last time I looked, commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network attached storage, media servers, that sort of thing. (Come to think of it, though, I've never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is symmetric.)
Commodity switches are symmetric for multiple reasons, but the biggest is probably because a server could be on any port and a client on any other port. WiFi has two separate data rate selections. The download could be at 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps. Or even the other way. WiFi is also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you should expect is 150mbps.
On 28/Feb/15 07:15, Philip Dorr wrote:
WiFi has two separate data rate selections. The download could be at 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps. Or even the other way. WiFi is also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you should expect is 150mbps.
This is easy to fix. If one needs to push more than 150Mbps upload out of their home gateway, get 802.11ac or run a cable from your favorite spot at the house to a cheap but fast home switch you can pick up from the store. The more difficult problem is how your ISP offers you onward uplink to match what you can push out of your home, as this thread is addressing. Mark.
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 implement AP syncing and *SMALLER* channels. let hte AP dynamically control the size of the channel as needed. Only have a 25 meg Internet service? Use a 5 MHz channel, not 160 MHz. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Dorr" <tagno25@gmail.com> To: "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:15:17 PM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.
Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on a home network, not the connection to the outside world. Last time I looked, commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network attached storage, media servers, that sort of thing. (Come to think of it, though, I've never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is symmetric.)
Commodity switches are symmetric for multiple reasons, but the biggest is probably because a server could be on any port and a client on any other port. WiFi has two separate data rate selections. The download could be at 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps. Or even the other way. WiFi is also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you should expect is 150mbps.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> 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 certain that is reasonable. James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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 long away from your standard consumer). ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "James R Cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:04:56 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > 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 certain that is reasonable. James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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 otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too long away from your standard consumer).
Don't forget that Skype is becoming popular -- it's even on mainstream TV, think _Big Bang Theory_. Another class you are forgetting is telecommuters, who use VPNs to connect to their main office from home (or hotel/motel rooms). * Internet Messaging * Tele-meeting (GoToMeeting, CUSeeMe, Skype conference calls) * Web-based activites (data lookup, forms) * Bulk data transfer, both upload and download, via VPN Then there are the on-line gamers. The size of that community is suggested by the uproar that has occurred when Lizard Squid overloaded the various gaming networks. The usage patterns continue to change. Remember that NetFlix streaming is, in Internet years, still relatively new. YouTube introduced its own distortions into network usage that ISPs still battle. I will grant you that, today, traffic is still asymmetric. The ratio of downstream/upstream is changing, as well as the total amount of traffic. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Developers are not sitting on their tails...
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 Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Satchell" <list@satchell.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:12:50 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] 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 otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too long away from your standard consumer).
Don't forget that Skype is becoming popular -- it's even on mainstream TV, think _Big Bang Theory_. Another class you are forgetting is telecommuters, who use VPNs to connect to their main office from home (or hotel/motel rooms). * Internet Messaging * Tele-meeting (GoToMeeting, CUSeeMe, Skype conference calls) * Web-based activites (data lookup, forms) * Bulk data transfer, both upload and download, via VPN Then there are the on-line gamers. The size of that community is suggested by the uproar that has occurred when Lizard Squid overloaded the various gaming networks. The usage patterns continue to change. Remember that NetFlix streaming is, in Internet years, still relatively new. YouTube introduced its own distortions into network usage that ISPs still battle. I will grant you that, today, traffic is still asymmetric. The ratio of downstream/upstream is changing, as well as the total amount of traffic. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Developers are not sitting on their tails...
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 material manner.
20 years ago, your standard consumer didn't use the internet either so there definitely no business case for anything other than POTS. Mike
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 because some people today use that much. *shakes head* Obviously the majority of the dissent here works with OPM. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:53:35 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] 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 material manner.
20 years ago, your standard consumer didn't use the internet either so there definitely no business case for anything other than POTS. Mike
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 have been running 486s with 32 gigs of RAM because some people today use that much. *shakes head* Obviously the majority of the dissent here works with OPM.
The point is that the incumbents (= telephants) at the time looked at even the minuscule AOL user base with disdain saying that their market share was irrelevant. Even into the early 2000's these same guys thought that voice was the only thing that really mattered because the new fangled internet users were outliers from their pots bread and butter. We now know those outliers were important. Being dismissive of them is dangerous. I think at this point, it's really not too much to ask for PHY's that can deliver decent upstream rates on demand to deal with the bursty nature of upstream traffic from eyeball networks. Nor is it too much to ask for l2/l3 shaping to deal with the internet equivalent of a synchronized toilet flush. 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 peak times, regardless of the average up/down byte count. Mike
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.
By that logic, we would have been running 486s with 32 gigs of RAM because some people today use that much. *shakes head* Obviously the majority of the dissent here works with OPM.
The point is that the incumbents (= telephants) at the time looked at even the minuscule AOL user base with disdain saying that their market share was irrelevant. Even into the early 2000's these same guys thought that voice was the only thing that really mattered because the new fangled internet users were outliers from their pots bread and butter. We now know those outliers were important. Being dismissive of them is dangerous.
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. It's just that they've stopped their buildout with the large markets; but they've been a power behind the state level anti-municipal broadband laws. Kind of annoying that, in areas where they have no intention of building out, they want to stand in the way of folks who want to do it themselves. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
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" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:59:37 PM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] 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.
By that logic, we would have been running 486s with 32 gigs of RAM because some people today use that much. *shakes head* Obviously the majority of the dissent here works with OPM.
The point is that the incumbents (= telephants) at the time looked at even the minuscule AOL user base with disdain saying that their market share was irrelevant. Even into the early 2000's these same guys thought that voice was the only thing that really mattered because the new fangled internet users were outliers from their pots bread and butter. We now know those outliers were important. Being dismissive of them is dangerous.
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. It's just that they've stopped their buildout with the large markets; but they've been a power behind the state level anti-municipal broadband laws. Kind of annoying that, in areas where they have no intention of building out, they want to stand in the way of folks who want to do it themselves. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:59 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> 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 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 because some people today use that much. *shakes head* Obviously the majority of the dissent here works with OPM.
The point is that the incumbents (= telephants) at the time looked at even the minuscule AOL user base with disdain saying that their market share was irrelevant. Even into the early 2000's these same guys thought that voice was the only thing that really mattered because the new fangled internet users were outliers from their pots bread and butter. We now know those outliers were important. Being dismissive of them is dangerous.
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. It's just that they've stopped their buildout with the large markets; but they've been a power behind the state level anti-municipal broadband laws. Kind of annoying that, in areas where they have no intention of building out, they want to stand in the way of folks who want to do it themselves.
It’s not that they have no intention of building out… It’s that they want to get the right bribes^wkickbacks^wsubsidies to do so. If the city can build their own fiber, they’re a lot less likely to bribe^wpayoff^wsubsidize Verizon to do it for them. Also, if a municipality owns fiber, they might actually allow open competition on the services side of things which would not only be bad for FIOS, but might also be bad for VZW, too. Owen
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 FIOS with static IPs, thus you can't have site to site VPNs for organizations with offices at various geographic locations using FIOS. Gary
On February 28, 2015 at 17:07 gwardell@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 breaths. Back around 2000 Verizon took about $2B in tax breaks to "do something" with fiber. A couple of years later someone in Congress noticed they hadn't done anything (other than took the tax breaks) and got on their case, do something or return the tax breaks (and probably other trouble.) So they formed a unit and spun up FiOS. It's not a business in the traditional sense, it was a way of staying out of jail (metaphorically speaking.) That's why it happened for a while and then came to a halt. Not that the unit didn't give it the old college try, you can do some interesting things with a coupla billion in cash and a mandate. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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*
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 peak times, regardless of the average up/down byte count.
When I was a COX customer they took the average upstream traffic. Thus I could burst over the upstream limit, for a while, but not a long while. They would eventually clamp me. Gary
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 important. Yes, that capacity is sitting idle most of the time but so what! We really should be delivering connections where link speed is not the limiting factor. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On March 1, 2015 at 09:46 marka@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 given a slow path.
Arguing otherwise is like saying that their time is not important.
Yes, that capacity is sitting idle most of the time but so what! We really should be delivering connections where link speed is not the limiting factor.
Yes, good point, the "occasional" argument would better apply to asymmetric up/down monthly bandwidth caps than bandwidth limitations. But I still think it's push/pull. 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 image-oriented software (other than porn.) -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@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 Feb 28, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> 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 image-oriented software (other than porn.)
That was 1992-4ish? I helped spin up early ISPs back then. The traffic analysis we did at the time showed the porn crowd came out after dark and left at sunrise. And they were facing self-limiting servers that could not keep up with the demand anyway, so the 'average' customer base wasn't affected. This crossed a pair of ISPs each backed by a single T1 trunk to "the internet" and two T1 channel banks for the dialup pool. Not quite "The World" but it was big time stuff for where we were.
On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount of time it takes to download content. This.
Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL circuit at home, but it takes quite a bit of my time to upload that one file. Even if the average BW was throttled to 512k, it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. Cloud services are becoming the choice for all kinds of content distribution, and there are more content creators out there than you might think who need to do exactly what I need to do. Yes, I do remember the days of dialup, in particular I remember the quite interesting business model of free.org, which dramatically reduced my long distance bill that I had been paying to dial up Eskimo North (I'm in the Southeast US, incidentally). And then we got dialup locally, and my old Okidata 9600 modem got a workout. And, well, I still use my connection in much the same way as I used dialup, turning it off when I'm not using it. I almost never leave it up all night; if my router isn't online it can't be used for malicious purposes, etc. And, no, I have no alternatives to the ILEC's DSL here, as 3G/4G cell service simply doesn't get to my house (now on the ridge behind my house, great 4G bandwidth, but I'm down in a valley, and the shadowing algorithm's show the story; I ran a Splat simulation from the cell tower site; across the creek from my house is the edge of one of the diffraction zones where good service can be found, and my house is in a deep null....) Thanks all for the interesting symmetry discussion; this has been enjoyable.
On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount of time it takes to download content. This.
Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL circuit at home, but it takes quite a bit of my time to upload that one file. Even if the average BW was throttled to 512k, it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. Cloud services are becoming the choice for all kinds of content distribution, and there are more content creators out there than you might think who need to do exactly what I need to do.
How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that? Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want? What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)?
And, well, I still use my connection in much the same way as I used dialup, turning it off when I'm not using it. I almost never leave it up all night; if my router isn't online it can't be used for malicious purposes, etc. And, no, I have no alternatives to the ILEC's DSL here, as 3G/4G cell service simply doesn't get to my house (now on the ridge behind my house, great 4G bandwidth, but I'm down in a valley, and the shadowing algorithm's show the story; I ran a Splat simulation from the cell tower site; across the creek from my house is the edge of one of the diffraction zones where good service can be found, and my house is in a deep null….)
I think you’re in the minority bothering to turn your router off at night. In my case, since I am hosting some services, turning off the routers wouldn’t fly anyway, but I recognize I’m nowhere near the average home user. As to the rest, your situation isn’t even unusual in the united States, no matter how much the ILECs continue to try and claim otherwise. In reality, 3G/4G cell service isn’t a competition anyway because it’s very hard to get decent service and bandwidth for anything approaching cost effective. Owen
On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that?
Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want?
What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)?
Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc. The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1.
On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:40 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> wrote:
...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that?
Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want?
What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)?
Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc.
The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1.
If you would see that as a win, I can personally guarantee you that you are in the minority among consumers. I, even as an advanced user know that overall, my usage pattern would suffer greatly if my 30/7 were converted to 18.5/18.5. (I’m on CMTS instead of ADSL, as all ADSL will do in my neighborhood is 1536/384 (on a good day)). Sure, my uploads would be faster, but that’s less than 1% of what I do and I’m almost never sitting there waiting for my upload to complete. When I upload something large, I pretty much do it as a fire-and-forget. I get notified if it fails and I use software/protocols for large files that are capable of resuming where they left off or recovering from failure with relatively minimal retransmission of previously transferred data. As such, while I’d much rather have 30Mbps of upstream data than 7, if I were given the choice between 30/30 vs. 53/7, I’s probably still choose 53/7. I agree that adaptive is a nice pipedream, but in the realm of reality, fixed is what is currently implemented and due to where the incentives currently reside, likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Owen
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. Chuck
I don't usually chime in on the list, but since this seems to be another hot item, i'll pitch in my $0.005 (since the $$ has been going up these days). IIRC the entire reason we have asymmetry to begin with is because it was created to resolve an issue with older ADSL hardware. I believe the reason it gave such great benefits at the time of faster downloads while not so good downloads is because simply of the power used in each direction (it takes more power to send than receive delivering farther distances, etc). So in this sense, telecoms decided that if you wanted to use both sides of your connection, you're a "Business Class" user that needed to upload something with download like speeds. Then as cable operators see the telecom vendors charge for it in this very fashion, they decide it's a great idea to charge for it so that they can stay "competitive" (cable also had these issues but have long since been resolved). So it would seem that there ARE legitimate complaints from those who do not want to be in a "Business Class" service just because they want to have the ability to upload content just as they download content. Regardless of the amount, this is something that has been complained about for quite a long time. Times have changed, infrastructure _should_ be upgraded by now for major transport operators, Tier-1/2 carriers, all the way down to last mile (i realize many rural places being worked on). Asymmetry needs to die just like the equipment will, thus the non-sense charges, etc. The only ones still fighting for asymmetry in this conversation are the ones that stand to make money from it. Technical perspective says this is a non-issue and symmetry is how it works by default anywhere inside of "Business Class". max On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchurch@gmail.com> wrote:
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical.
Chuck
In message <000101d05567$74b58530$5e208f90$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes:
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance.
Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter.
On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users.
Once you get over a certain threshold more download speed doesn't buy as much as more upload speed. For movies you want the data there before you need to display it. It really doesn't matter if it is 30 seconds before or 20 minutes before, you only consume the data so fast.
Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical.
If the network supported it this would be typical of a household with teenagers. People adapt their usage to the constraints presented. That doesn't mean they are necessarially happy with the constraints. Don't take lack of complaints as indicating people don't want things improved. As speed increases the importance of more speed decreases. We get to the point where thing happen fast enough. We also start to be limited by things other than link speed. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 03/02/2015 09:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter.
That's what USB thumb drives and school/library computers are all about: if you don't have the moxie at home, find a better path. Of course, if the kid planned better, s/he wouldn't be in photo-finish hell. (And I speak as someone who regularly crowded deadlines in school.) More compelling is the argument of collaborative creation of PowerPoint slide stacks with lots of graphic elements with a geographically distributed group of people. Particularly if any of the information in the slides is company confidential. Better upstream speeds will speed the collaboration, particularly in the final stages. Text is fast; full-color graphics can be slow.
In message <54F57656.2010804@satchell.net>, Stephen Satchell writes:
On 03/02/2015 09:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter.
That's what USB thumb drives and school/library computers are all about: if you don't have the moxie at home, find a better path.
I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives.
Of course, if the kid planned better, s/he wouldn't be in photo-finish hell. (And I speak as someone who regularly crowded deadlines in school.)
Well kids will be kids.
More compelling is the argument of collaborative creation of PowerPoint slide stacks with lots of graphic elements with a geographically distributed group of people. Particularly if any of the information in the slides is company confidential. Better upstream speeds will speed the collaboration, particularly in the final stages. Text is fast; full-color graphics can be slow.
Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives.
I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their computer labs, open before classes start. Ice never heard of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day.
Well kids will be kids.
Very true :)
Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time.
This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making. Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8. The point is that a great percentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband connections. The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same reasons as WiFi. For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical. I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step. I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps. BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
imho this two staments are true: - tomorrow a new product or service on the Internet can completely change the ratio download/upload - most probably, this will not happen It may take a few days (hours for early adopters) for a new service to become popular on the Internet, that make a intensive use of upstream. This... so much can happens. But I would bet my fortune and my children's that it will not happen People do try to create this type of service/product. (like this one) http://www.codediesel.com/browser/opera-unite-a-web-server-in-your-browser/ -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
In message <CAMrdfRwreb_NE1zqg73V1JFXFtgRpPnNBikSd9WO8Esek13vpw@mail.gmail.com> , Scott Helms writes:
I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives.
I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their computer labs, open before classes start. Ice never heard of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day.
Well now you have. See Edmodo. The kids all have accounts. The teachers all have accounts. The communication is all in the open, no private chats. Assignments are handed out and submitted with a timestamp over Edmodo. How many of you have submitted tax returns at 23:00 because you have been running late? Do you do this electronically now.
Well kids will be kids.
Very true :)
Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time.
This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making. Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8. The point is that a great percentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband connections. The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same reasons as WiFi.
It is our job as engineers to give consumers what they need even if they don't realise they needed it.
For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical. I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step.
When you are running a nominally 400Mbps WiFi into 100Mbps fibre you do really want to be able to fill that pipe.
I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps.
Averages hide the peak demands. The last mile should handle the peak demands. Further upstream you get the over subscription savings. Looking at averages and saying that they define the needs limits is *bad* engineering. For POTS you would get a few hertz if you did that. The averaging of POTS comes once you combine multiple sources together at the exchange. Even then you look at the peak periods not the daily average. Asymetry is pushing oversubscription too close to the consumer. It is a undesirable but sometimes necessary trade off. Asymetry traffic volumes don't mean asymetric speeds are desirable.
BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction.
There are lots of places that need to fixed. You address all of them in parallel. There are enough engineers in the world to do that. Just because WiFi has issues doesn't mean the next link doesn't have issues as well.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
--089e010d8c2ae4b8c20510620314 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<p dir=3D"ltr"><br> ><br> > I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thum= b<br> > drives.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">I think he was trying to point out that most school librarie= s, and their computer labs, open before classes start.=C2=A0 Ice never hear= d of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if = you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the ne= xt day.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">><br> > Well kids will be kids.<br> ></p> <p dir=3D"ltr">Very true :)<br></p> <p dir=3D"ltr">><br> > Yep.=C2=A0 The assumption that because you are sending from home it is= <br> > not time critical is absolutely bogus.=C2=A0 Upstream speeds really ar= e<br> > just as important as downstream speeds.=C2=A0 It just that it is not<b= r> > normally needed as much of the time.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are = making.=C2=A0 Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or a= symmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is= highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most = often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8.=C2=A0 The point is that a great pe= rcentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetric= al broadband connections.<br> The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same re= asons as WiFi.=C2=A0 </p> <p dir=3D"ltr">For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as muc= h as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that= don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE?=C2=A0 In the WiFi case they're= taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical.= =C2=A0 I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting= in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just lo= oking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients conn= ected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less.=C2=A0 A just over 20% have an a= verage upload rate of 1mbps.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that w= e think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the pe= rformance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and w= e need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase cust= omer satisfaction.</p> <p dir=3D"ltr">><br> > Mark<br> > --<br> > Mark Andrews, ISC<br> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia<br> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= =C2=A0 =C2=A0INTERNET: <a href=3D"mailto:marka@isc.org">marka@isc.org</a><= br> </p>
--089e010d8c2ae4b8c20510620314-- -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity. Frank -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mark Andrews Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:57 PM To: Scott Helms Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] <snip> Averages hide the peak demands. The last mile should handle the peak demands. Further upstream you get the over subscription savings. Looking at averages and saying that they define the needs limits is *bad* engineering. For POTS you would get a few hertz if you did that. The averaging of POTS comes once you combine multiple sources together at the exchange. Even then you look at the peak periods not the daily average. Asymetry is pushing oversubscription too close to the consumer. It is a undesirable but sometimes necessary trade off. Asymetry traffic volumes don't mean asymetric speeds are desirable. <snip> Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Frank, Are your measurements taken at the campus boundary or within the campus network? I remember the confusion when Centrex was first introduced at UMich. The statistic there that confounded was call durations wildly exceeding models, but mostly within the campus, not to the outside world. Could there be peer to peer traffic that you do not see? James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
On Mar 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com> wrote:
The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity.
Frank
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets. Frank From: James R Cutler [mailto:james.cutler@consultant.com] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:51 AM To: Frank Bulk Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] Frank, Are your measurements taken at the campus boundary or within the campus network? I remember the confusion when Centrex was first introduced at UMich. The statistic there that confounded was call durations wildly exceeding models, but mostly within the campus, not to the outside world. Could there be peer to peer traffic that you do not see? James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com <mailto:James.cutler@consultant.com> PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu On Mar 6, 2015, at 11:35 PM, Frank Bulk <frnkblk@iname.com <mailto:frnkblk@iname.com> > wrote: The download/upload in our residential/business eyeball network has been trending a 95th-percentile based ratio of 9:1. If I look at a higher-ed customer of ours who has symmetric service and has a young demographic the average ratio is 11:1 and the peak ratio 8.8:1. So despite access to symmetric speeds, they're not showing a distinctively heavier symmetricity. Frank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets.
BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
It's amazing, really. Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective. Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats. I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well. The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet. As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it. On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets.
BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I? :-) On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
It's amazing, really.
Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective.
Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats.
I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well.
The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet.
As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets.
BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Sorry, I know I get long-winded. That's why I don't post as much as I used to. ;-) On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I?
:-)
On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
It's amazing, really.
Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file sharing peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective.
Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our throats.
I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a widely held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well.
The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet.
As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about their upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out their ISP can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets.
BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales like that on a resnet at a sizable campus.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531 MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
I wasn't being funny. :-) That was about a quarter to a third of a /wonderful/ #takethat to the *AA... On April 23, 2015 10:17:51 AM EDT, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
Sorry, I know I get long-winded. That's why I don't post as much as I used to. ;-)
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
There's an op-ed piece in this posting, Ray. Do you want to write it, or should I?
:-)
On April 23, 2015 10:06:42 AM EDT, Ray Soucy <rps@maine.edu> wrote:
It's amazing, really.
Netflix and YouTube now overtake BitTorrent and all other file
peer-to-peer traffic combined, even on academic networks, by order(s) of magnitude. The amount of peer-to-peer traffic is not even significant in comparison. It might as well be IRC from our perspective.
Internet usage habits have shifted quite a bit in the past decade. I think the takeaway is that if you provide content in a way that is fairly priced and convenient to access (e.g. DRM doesn't get in your way), most people will opt for the legal route. Something we were trying to explain to the MPAA and RIAA years ago when they shoved the DMCA down our
sharing throats.
I'm certainly in favor of symmetrical service. I think there is a
held myth that DOS attacks will take down the Internet when everyone has more bandwidth. The fact is that DOS attacks are a problem regardless of bandwidth, and throttling people isn't a solution. The other (somewhat insulting) argument that people will use greater upload speeds for illegal activity is pretty bogus as well.
The limit on upload bandwidth for most people is a roadblock to a lot of the services that people will take for granted a decade from now; cloud backup, residential video surveillance over IP, peer-to-peer high definition video conferencing. And likely a lot of things that we haven't imagined yet.
As funny as it sounds, I think Twitch (streaming video games) has been the application that has made the younger generation care about
upload speed more than anything else. They now have a use case where their limited upload is a real problem for them, and when they find out
can't provide anything good enough they get pretty upset about it.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk@iname.com>
Those are measured at the campus boundary. I don't have visibility inside the school's network to know who much intra-campus traffic there may be . but we know that peer-to-peer is a small percentage of overall Internet traffic flows, and streaming video remains the largets.
BitTorrent makes special efforts to keep as much traffic local as possible, I understand; that probably isn't too helpful... except at scales
widely their their ISP like
that on a resnet at a sizable campus.
Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-- Ray Patrick Soucy Network Engineer University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526 F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network www.maineren.net
-- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? For consumers to have choice, there must be an available alternative
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote: that is affordable.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
I don't know many schools that are open at midnight to accept thumb drives.
I think he was trying to point out that most school libraries, and their computer labs, open before classes start. Ice never heard of a school deadline that was actually in the middle of the night, so if you're working on a paper at night it's because it's due the next day.
Well kids will be kids.
Very true :)
Yep. The assumption that because you are sending from home it is not time critical is absolutely bogus. Upstream speeds really are just as important as downstream speeds. It just that it is not normally needed as much of the time.
This assertion is counter to the choices that consumers are making. Forget about the access technology and it's symmetry or asymmetry for a moment and consider the growth of WiFi in the home, which is highly asymmetrical because clients have much lower power output and most often 0 dB gain antennas at 2.4 and 5.8. The point is that a great percentage of the traffic we see is from asymmetric sources even on symmetrical broadband connections. The other thing to consider is that LTE is asymmetrical and for the same reasons as WiFi.
For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver that in WiFi and LTE? In the WiFi case they're taking a symmetrical connection to their home and making it asymmetrical. I can make a home WiFi network operate more symmetrically by putting in multiple APs but very few consumers take that step.
I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps.
BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction.
+10! If you would like to talk to other researchers poking deeply into these fronts, also equipped with large data sets and some rapidly evolving analysis tools, please talk to me offlist.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
I'm not done collecting all of our data yet, but just looking at what we have right now (~17,000 APs) over half of the clients connected have an upload rate of 5mbps or less. A just over 20% have an average upload rate of 1mbps.
BTW, the reason we're working on the WiFi data is that we think this is a huge problem, because consumers don't separate the performance of the in home WiFi from their overall broadband experience and we need to dramatically improve the in home WiFi experience to increase customer satisfaction. "The Cloud" solved most peoples issues with NAT. Rather than having IPv6 to a fileserver at my house, I've got the option of IPv4 to dropbox "anywhere".
Most people store all their data on remote servers now. That means unless they're uploading a new picture to facebook or a new video to youtube, 90% of their at home usage of their wireless will be downloads (looking at existing content). Given that some people are getting Active Ethernet to the home, with IPv6, we might see an eventual new killer app that changes the way bandwidth is used, but I think right now the reason we're not seeing a killer app is because of two things: 1. Users don't have the bandwidth. Most people really are on constrained pipes that can't tolerate heavy uploads 2. NAT still breaks things for everyone so people can't do it.
On 3/2/2015 11:14 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
If the network supported it this would be typical of a household with teenagers. People adapt their usage to the constraints presented. That doesn't mean they are necessarially happy with the constraints. Don't take lack of complaints as indicating people don't want things improved. As speed increases the importance of more speed decreases. We get to the point where thing happen fast enough. We also start to be limited by things other than link speed. Mark
This. I'm moving considerably out into the country. Discussions about the uncertainty of what we'll be doing for broadband has given me a good insight to my son's expectations. At a minimum he needs the ability for his phone or computer to be able to send messages to his friends; and raise your hand if you believe he'll actually settle for that long term. However, this is not what he wants. He'd like to stream video/video skype more on his phone, but he has to make sure to stay under the plan's data limit. He'd like to host more gaming servers at the house (though he guesses he can settle for the DC based VPS server, but it's limited on supported games). He'd like to stream his games to twitch. He'd like to collaborate with others on his music. He'd like to mine crypto-currency (nothing to do with upload, but I'm not paying for it). As he's gotten older, he's wanted to do a lot more things. He is settling for what the bandwidth will allow him to do. He is finding ways around the limitations, but that does not mean he doesn't want more. I'd like to say that my son is special (He is! I'm his dad!), but in relation to this discussion he's an average teenager. Time moves on. We may not need symmetric bandwidth, but we definitely need much higher upload capacity and, if possible, we should consider how to make things more dynamic as we move forward. Software developers push what the majority can support. When there's enough people able to handle HD, they pump HD. When there is enough upload capacity, they'll develop more apps that utilize it. And if they can get away with developing p2p streaming to save their own costs on bandwidth, they WILL do it. After all, in the end, it's still about the money. Jack
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:06 PM, Chuck Church <chuckchurch@gmail.com> wrote:
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance.
But In the bufferbloated era, your upload just trashed he network for everyone else on the link. https://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/bufferbloat-demonstration-videos/
On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical.
A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays. Small businesses (currently) have it worse, if any of the users try to combine these things.
Chuck
-- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote:
A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays.
and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions. Nick
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 04/03/2015 16:26, Dave Taht wrote:
A geeky household with dad doing skype, mom uploading to facebook, a kid doing a game, and another kid doing netflix, however, is common. And, it is truly amazing how many households have more than one device per person nowadays.
and $kid running a bittorrent hub, maxing out bandwidth in both directions.
Honestly, if you dramatically improve uplink and downlink latencies by adopting fair queueing + aqm on the cpe and headend - even bittorrent becomes a lot less of a problem. Home networks get slower, but not unusable. Really thorough paper on this: http://perso.telecom-paristech.fr/~drossi/paper/rossi14comnet-b.pdf While I do have some detailed data on torrent's behavior under fq_codel now, I haven't got it together enough to publish, (the above work is lagging behind). These days I basically just say that stuff in IW10 slow start (e.g. web traffic) punches (bittorrent) uTP traffic (no IW10) aside, the FQ bits in fq_codel make everything else work pretty well on low rate traffic like videoconferencing/voip/dns/web in general, the aqm bits keep overall queue links low on any fat flows, and the only major problem remain is torrent using IW10 over tcp inadvertently while competing with other single stream download/upload traffic. You get your edge device configured right, and you're golden, no matter how many darn geeky kids you have. http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014_05_01_archive.html Admittedly a little classification can help, on torrent, and I certainly regard the default number of peers (6-50) to be a bit much. You don't need to "just believe" me, please feel free to try what is in openwrt barrier breaker and chaos calmer. I never notice what the kids are doing on my link anymore, nor do they notice me.
Nick
-- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb
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-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Satchell Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 10:13 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] <snip> I will grant you that, today, traffic is still asymmetric. The ratio of downstream/upstream is changing, as well as the total amount of traffic. Who knows what tomorrow will bring? Developers are not sitting on their tails...
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 people who use tablet/cellular capabilities like AirPlay to stream content from their phone/tablet to their A/V systems and I think you’re well beyond 5% of the market and growing. Owen
On Feb 28, 2015, at 07:57 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> 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 otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too long away from your standard consumer).
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R Cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:04:56 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > 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 certain that is reasonable.
James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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 likely shrinking due to the market making it so convenient to do it online vs. having to rip or Torrent everything you could possibly ever want, store it and manage the interface to get it. Look at percentage of traffic that was Torrent 10 years ago and percentage of traffic today that is NetFlix. Do people do it? Yes. Do new people do it every day? Yes. Do normal people do it? No. Is it growing? No. Is it a large percentage of people? No. Even if it were a ton of people, would it be some flagrant violation of what I proposed? In no way whatsoever. I referred to dynamic channel sizes. 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 MHz would be more than sufficient. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 11:51:29 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] 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 people who use tablet/cellular capabilities like AirPlay to stream content from their phone/tablet to their A/V systems and I think you’re well beyond 5% of the market and growing. Owen
On Feb 28, 2015, at 07:57 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> 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 otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too long away from your standard consumer).
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R Cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:04:56 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > 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 certain that is reasonable.
James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
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.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
On Feb 28, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
Do normal people do it?
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" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 12:14:12 PM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality] 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.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu On Feb 28, 2015, at 1:04 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: Do normal people do it?
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 get awfully large. 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 otherwise, you've (perhaps thankfully) spent too long away from your standard consumer).
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "James R Cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2015 9:04:56 AM Subject: Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > 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 certain that is reasonable.
James R. Cutler James.cutler@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Completely wrong. Sorry, but most network traffic is not symmetric. In corporate environments traffic flows much more heavily from server to client. Home networks are very highly asymmetric because upstream you see URL requests and downstream you have media streams. PON networks were designed so that the carrier can deliver internet and video services to you. The network was designed to deliver content to you not from you. Carrier grade gigE switches are not the issue, the issue is effectively getting the consumer what they want without super expensive CPE or overbuilding the network. Most consumers care about fast download speed so they can watch content. Period, this is a fact. Of course there are other cases but networks are designed to provide the services that the consumer wants. I can't believe that this is so hard to understand. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Folks,
Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges. Personally, >I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than >PON gear.
Miles Fidelman
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 2/27/2015 11:48 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
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
Build it and they will come is a good way to go out of business in this industry. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
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
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
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.
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
Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
Hmm... my copy of crashplan is reporting 8mps of upload right now. Granted, that's not average, but it can be sustained for a while, whenever I shut down a virtual machine (Parallels on a Mac, the entire virtual image takes a while to back up - not all that uncommon). I also expect that most folks who buy a network backup service just use the default settings for when to do backups - which suggests an awful lot of backup traffic going on at the same time every night. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
That's my point. NANOG users are not the average user. For every one of you there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies and a couple Word docs. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Hmm... my copy of crashplan is reporting 8mps of upload right now. Granted, that's not average, but it can be sustained for a while, whenever I shut down a virtual machine (Parallels on a Mac, the entire virtual image takes a while to back >up - not all that uncommon). I also expect that most folks who buy a network backup service just use the default settings for when to do backups - which suggests an >awful lot of backup traffic going on at the same time every night.
Miles Fidelman
On 2/27/2015 5:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
That's my point. NANOG users are not the average user. For every one of you there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies and a couple Word docs.
The next generation is growing up. They are streaming their games, spending huge amounts of time on skype in video groups, hosting servers, uploading video to youtube, and all kinds of things I don't do. Just the other day I got to hear about "oh, and I want my group to be able to watch this video with me on skype." What the companies aren't hearing yet, but what the parents are is.... "Dad, why can't we have more upload?" Jack
On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind. But wait... Mark.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 20:58 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home surveillance but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind.
But wait...
Mark.
Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them. Owen
On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.
But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the upward direction... When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do some work without gouging my eyes out. Mark.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.
But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the upward direction...
When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do some work without gouging my eyes out.
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. YMMV. Owen
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. 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. Mark.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 22:23 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@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
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.
On Feb 28, 2015, at 01:22 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@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
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.
(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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27/Feb/15 19:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
you need
a *huge* pipe down. Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to downlink to fit in the available bandwidth.
Isn't this a phenomenon of the state of our (uplink) networks? Remove the restriction and see what happens? Mark. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU8T7JAAoJEGcZuYTeKm+Gni0P/A8j+pK4V6ipzfKHypGUeVJR QPxAGNpZiPG3xZhsiOvvYXyeFV3zvTYRj0m2BZzVfxrYSyT0FoB72xNxDLiALjIW 74l3stqWFAFUCW/5DG/A49VOsHAu0328f8PIlO10FbeusD6YDxJ5Y/w3pSQvNgEK NwaOsoQBomLLOzAVd+TwUfWw7WEqmp/nw8bohDMkpjvsyibf6G/ACZ7CrwTX7Ly9 vQDFUgNF//DkeDpl3QIPVTUch3wInK3BEhCkl5NnRo6DlILfoZdR9xafmXPU0ejH o+qGlLJoDkoieA8w/vht6WD8mPME75PlEsJdHLNM3I5270SfGfmqxtNpUofVP4hO ka4Hd6JngNXSdcLdSgl02QngnINyJ133dLd7p6kSSo2KG9eOga4838BzSzymQrNf +b4qbUjCyjjzAzJLtySrdNlrZxruR9kP5G3JX9uHbEaZ4z02raP33VBI6bvLnQvR 3FQ9Z5skRocTI2cwInUJpZjG8K1nIZINV2ivP8ah7mKo950o+BZ9NfhehOhjlx28 Dz4KZ2zak22zD7c9D2Wtkl4A14DxdCNOuCN1dh2Gl/uxcVrKXoPp0Max+FblaNyr mj0KnSJNkVc6I/SiHV5+WK8j+IBVJfs0/tA9uKXQgObmhmLhVejDSmteptbD6Pwh kIsFpVO7BdwQVGVUgrOh =nZQs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 27/Feb/15 19:13, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, you need a *huge* pipe down. Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to downlink to fit in the available bandwidth.
Isn't this a phenomenon of the state of our (uplink) networks?
Remove the restriction and see what happens?
Only partially. It is also a phenomenon of having built the first broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy: broadband networks don't see much call for tons of upstream because it wasn't available, and so there aren't lots of apps for it, and so users don't ask for it, and so the cycle continues. In many cases, users who had high upstream requirements have been instead working around the brokenness by, for example, renting a server at a datacenter. I know lots of gamers do this, etc. So even if we were to create massive new upstream capacity tomorrow, it might appear for many years that there's little interest. Consider streaming video. We theoretically had sufficient speed to do this at least ten years ago, but it took a long time for the technology to mature and catch on. However, it should be obvious that the best route to guaranteeing that new technologies do not develop is to keep the status quo. With wildly asymmetric speeds, upstream speeds are sometimes barely enough for the things we do today (and are already insufficient for network based backup strategies, etc). Just try uploading a DVD ISO image for VM deployment from home to work ... The current service offerings generally seem to avoid offering high upstream speeds entirely, and so effectively eliminate even the potential to explore the problem on a somewhat less-rigged basis. ... 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.
On 28/Feb/15 07:09, Joe Greco wrote:
Only partially. It is also a phenomenon of having built the first broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy: broadband networks don't see much call for tons of upstream because it wasn't available, and so there aren't lots of apps for it, and so users don't ask for it, and so the cycle continues.
My point. It's not that folk don't ask for more uplink, but it's that they adjust to their situation because it's hard enough getting a sales person on the phone that knows what their doing, let along getting someone clued up to come install the damn thing. It's like cellphone toll quality - we've all accepted that if the call is unclear or drops, we simply ring our party back instead of doing something about it. We adapt to our network conditions where we know further argument will yield strokes and heart attacks. It does not mean we don't want better...
In many cases, users who had high upstream requirements have been instead working around the brokenness by, for example, renting a server at a datacenter. I know lots of gamers do this, etc.
A lot of my staff queue their uploads until they get to the office, where we have fibre to our PoP. That's saying much...
So even if we were to create massive new upstream capacity tomorrow, it might appear for many years that there's little interest. Consider streaming video. We theoretically had sufficient speed to do this at least ten years ago, but it took a long time for the technology to mature and catch on.
However, it should be obvious that the best route to guaranteeing that new technologies do not develop is to keep the status quo. With wildly asymmetric speeds, upstream speeds are sometimes barely enough for the things we do today (and are already insufficient for network based backup strategies, etc). Just try uploading a DVD ISO image for VM deployment from home to work ...
The current service offerings generally seem to avoid offering high upstream speeds entirely, and so effectively eliminate even the potential to explore the problem on a somewhat less-rigged basis.
Agree - but fundamental change like this doesn't happen overnight. Whenever we start increasing upload speed, there will be reasonable latency until users start to take advantage. So the sooner, the sooner. Mark.
On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved. Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok?
I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if they did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. That may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others. I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, "Enjoy your free speed upgrade". They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and gave them a slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower upload limit. 500k may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to begin with, it's a considerable amount.
Jack, I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413) - ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_T1.413_Issue_2>, up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s - G.dmt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.1>, ITU-T G.992.1, up to 10 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s - G.lite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.2>, ITU-T G.992.2, more noise and attenuation resistant than G.dmt, up to 1,536 kbit/s and 512 kbit/s - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2> (ADSL2), ITU-T G.992.3, up to 12 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 plus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2_plus> (ADSL2+), ITU-T G.992.5, up to 24 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net> wrote:
On 2/27/2015 11:03 AM, Bruce H McIntosh wrote:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved. Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in the offerings, ISPs, ok?
I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if they did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. That may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others.
I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, "Enjoy your free speed upgrade". They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and gave them a slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower upload limit. 500k may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to begin with, it's a considerable amount.
These standards are for the interoperability of the equipment between vendors. There is no technical reason that you could not have one particular speed in one direction and any other speed in the opposite direction as long as you do not exceed the total bandwidth potential of the loop. In fact, in the pre-standards days of DSL we could dial up any speed you wanted in either direction (because the DSLAM and CPE were from the same manufacturer). In this case, the standard reflects what the customer wants, not a technical limitation. If people want a different ratio of up to downlink speed it could certainly be done. ADSL is by definition asymmetric. We also sold SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were generally businesses. See G.SHDSL if you want a standard for symmetric DSL. It's there, it is just not a popular. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Jack,
I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
- ANSI T1.413 Issue 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_T1.413_Issue_2>, up to 8 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s - G.dmt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.1>, ITU-T G.992.1, up to 10 Mbit/s and 1 Mbit/s - G.lite <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.992.2>, ITU-T G.992.2, more noise and attenuation resistant than G.dmt, up to 1,536 kbit/s and 512 kbit/s - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2> (ADSL2), ITU-T G.992.3, up to 12 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s - Asymmetric digital subscriber line 2 plus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_digital_subscriber_line_2_plus> (ADSL2+), ITU-T G.992.5, up to 24 Mbit/s and 3.5 Mbit/s
On 02/27/2015 09:40 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
If people want a different ratio of up to downlink speed it could certainly be done. ADSL is by definition asymmetric. We also sold SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were generally businesses. See G.SHDSL if you want a standard for symmetric DSL. It's there, it is just not a popular.
When I was involved with private-loop provision, what I noticed here in northern Nevada is that the provisioning of T1 circuits moved from baseband signalling to SDSL. From the standpoint of cable management, the splatter from SDSL was MUCH lower than the splattering of baseband T1, so instead of being limited to a single T1 circuit per 25-pair bundle, you could have several circuits. TIA T1Q1 has quite a lot to say on this.
When I was involved with private-loop provision, what I noticed here in northern Nevada is that the provisioning of T1 circuits moved from baseband signalling to SDSL. >From the standpoint of cable management, the splatter from SDSL was MUCH lower than the splattering of baseband T1, so instead of being limited to a single T1 circuit >per 25-pair bundle, you could have several circuits.
TIA T1Q1 has quite a lot to say on this.
Absolutely correct, the SDSL gets you around a lot of the inductance problems with baseband T-1s. For quite awhile now most carriers deliver T-1s using SDSL smartjacks. Some are single pair 1.5mbps bidirectional and on longer circuits they use two pairs each running 768 kbps. That technology is what DSL home service developed from and predates the ADSL standards which were create explicitly for internet users that want more downstream than upstream. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Jack,
I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC) supported 8/1.5 for ADSL and I think 24/1 for ADSL2+. My point wasn't about standards, but an actual event. There is a perception that faster download is an upgrade, even if your upload is reduced. For the most part, they were right. Only a small percentage of the customers were upset at the upload decrease. The kicker was, the max downlink speed they allowed was 10. If they could have supported the right annex, they could have had more upload. Vendor limitations and such. :( Jack
AFC, the only shelf I worked on that would silently allow you to allocate so much bandwidth to the ADSL cards that voice wouldn't work.... Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Jack Bates <jbates@paradoxnetworks.net> wrote:
On 2/27/2015 11:27 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Jack,
I don't know what manufacturer you might be thinking of, but from a standards point of view ADSL2 and ADSL2+ both have faster upstream speeds than ADSL (G.dmt or T1.413)
Oh, standards wise, that is true. However, the gear they had (AFC) supported 8/1.5 for ADSL and I think 24/1 for ADSL2+. My point wasn't about standards, but an actual event. There is a perception that faster download is an upgrade, even if your upload is reduced. For the most part, they were right. Only a small percentage of the customers were upset at the upload decrease.
The kicker was, the max downlink speed they allowed was 10. If they could have supported the right annex, they could have had more upload. Vendor limitations and such. :(
Jack
Actually most users would perceive a download increase as a speed upgrade because they are not hitting the performance limits of the upstream. In the DSL world, there is a maximum reliable speed attainable due to the physics involved in high speed transmission over copper. More speed in one direction will definitely cause a corresponding decrease in the other direction, this is not a "maybe" this is a fact. If a DSL circuit is capable of 10 mbps total bandwidth you can slice the direction any way you want as long as it totals 10 mbps. Users want more download in general.
I'm all for this, except many technologies don't allow for it. Even if they did, you might see a lot less down in exchange for that upload. That may be fine for some, but would be undesired by others.
I laugh every time I see a billboard locally that says, "Enjoy your free speed upgrade". They switched all their customers from ADSL to ADSL2 and gave them a slight download increase. Of course, ADSL2 has a slower upload limit. 500k >may not seem a lot, but when you only had 1.5m to begin with, it's a considerable amount.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K video to their friends UHD TV? Given that all transmission media has some sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download speed. There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants. As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds. Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today? Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that requires a faster transmission media. Do you actually believe that average users are suffering with a 5 mbps upstream? I don't. I just don't see the average user "freely interchanging ideas" at more than 5 mbps. I don't feel like "Big Brother" forced me to watch Netflix and my next door neighbor just doesn't provide a lot of engaging HD content that I just must see. By the way, most carriers have plenty of symmetric offerings, it is just that they are marketed as business class not because we are evil but because that is the normal usage case. Remember that most offerings were symmetric up until DSL became available which allowed us to provide the faster downloads users actually wanted. Modems and TDM circuits were symmetric and everyone hated the fact that all this upstream went unused while people longed for better download speeds. Actually if the traffic patterns were actually more symmetric, the carriers would be happier because it would create a much more any-to-any flow and this net neutrality garbage would never have been an issue. In the real world, there are actually a handful of sites pushing tons of bandwidth in one direction to a lot of users. That is what it is until "Joe Average User" starts creating engaging content.
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY. For the Internet, as >such, truly to live up to its promise to continue to revolutionize the world through free exchange of ideas, information, >data and so forth, Joe Average User *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does coming DOWN. Just as an example, my service at home is what, 50 down/5 up? >That structure is less conducive to free interchange and more conducive to the Big-Brother™-seal-of-approval mindless >consumption of whatever content THEY™ deem necessary and sufficient to keep the bread and circus masses dull and uninvolved. >Plus, the slow uplink speeds make remote backups dreadfully impractical for the home user. So let's see some symmetry in the >offerings, ISPs, ok?
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 2015-02-27 12:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K video to their friends UHD TV? Given that all transmission media has some sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download speed. There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants. As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds. Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today? Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that requi! res a fast er transmission media.
Do you actually believe that average users are suffering with a 5 mbps upstream? I don't. I just don't see the average user "freely interchanging ideas" at more than 5 mbps. I don't feel like "Big Brother" forced me to watch Netflix and my next door neighbor just doesn't provide a lot of engaging HD content that I just must see.
I guess I know more than the "average" number of creative types who might be interested in things like video collaboration, music/video recording, sharing around large hunks of content to edit/modify/etc., and of course my previously mentioned hobby horse, backing it all up in a timely manner to someplace maybe not in the path of seasonal hurricanes :). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
I think you may see more than average numbers of creative types at a university environment. Once you have a full time job you tend to have less time for "creative endeavors". I can say that having thousands of customers, the content producers are definitely a minority. I would even guess that most of your creative users still download more than they upload. It is simply math. A single person cannot create content as fast as they can consume it. The traffic is even becoming more asymmetric. You would have to create an awful lot of music and video collaboration and lots of documents to rival that 4K movie you want to watch. I can watch a movie every day without too much effort. I would be hard pressed to make that much music or content of my own. I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall. Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the average user's circuit is sitting idle most of the time in any case so if that backup takes all day to complete, no one cares. On this group we have to watch that we do not see ourselves as the "average user", we definitely are not. Bottom line is that symmetric technology is actually easier (and the original DSL technology which was mapping symmetric TDM channels onto copper loops), users just don't want to buy it in most cases. ADSL is what users want.
I guess I know more than the "average" number of creative types who might be interested in things like video collaboration, music/video recording, sharing around large hunks of content to edit/modify/etc., and of course my >>previously mentioned hobby horse, backing it all up in a timely manner to someplace maybe not in the path of seasonal hurricanes :).
Steven Naslund Chicago IL
On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall. Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the average user's circuit is sitting idle most of the time in any case so if that backup takes all day to complete, no one cares. On this group we have to watch that we do not see ourselves as the "average user", we definitely are not.
As with everything I want it when I want it. It has nothing to do with aggregate bytes, but burst. If I'm uploading 4k content of baby's first birthday for all of the grandparents, they are not happy if the intertoobs busts a gasket. Mike
-.-- --- ..- / -.- -. --- .-- / .-- .... .- - / .-- --- ..- .-.. -.. / -- .- -.- . / - .... .. ... / .-- .... --- .-.. . / -.-. --- -. ...- . .-. ... .- - .. --- -. / -... . - - . .-. ..--.. / .. ..-. / .. - / .-- . .-. . / .. -. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . .-.-.- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:
On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall. Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the average user's circuit is sitting idle most of the time in any case so if that backup takes all day to complete, no one cares. On this group we have to watch that we do not see ourselves as the "average user", we definitely are not.
As with everything I want it when I want it. It has nothing to do with aggregate bytes, but burst. If I'm uploading 4k content of baby's first birthday for all of the grandparents, they are not happy if the intertoobs busts a gasket.
Mike
Naslund, Steve wrote:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K video to their friends UHD TV? Given that all transmission media has some sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download speed. There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants. As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds. Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today? Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that requires a faster transmission media.
Do you actually believe that average users are suffering with a 5 mbps upstream? I don't. I just don't see the average user "freely interchanging ideas" at more than 5 mbps. I don't feel like "Big Brother" forced me to watch Netflix and my next door neighbor just doesn't provide a lot of engaging HD content that I just must see.
From a user point of view, it's not so much asymmetry as it is low peak upload speeds, which hurt you for things like: - network backup - video conferencing (NOT an argument for symmetry, though - your only sending your stream, you're receiving multiple streams) - uploading large files (5 minutes to upload the latest version of a report to the office, sending a large photo album or video of an event, particularly annoying, I expect to folks who shoot a lot of video Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans? Not sure how well it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON, which tops out at 155Mbps for uploads - theoretically, I have 25/25 service, but I've occasionally seen my uploads fall to 100kbps (yes that's a k). Highly intermittent though - Verizon's techs have been having lots of fun trying to track things down. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 27/Feb/15 20:04, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans? Not sure how well it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON, which tops out at 155Mbps for uploads - theoretically, I have 25/25 service, but I've occasionally seen my uploads fall to 100kbps (yes that's a k). Highly intermittent though - Verizon's techs have been having lots of fun trying to track things down.
And this is one of the reasons I think xPON is still the wrong way to go, if the industry feels symmetry is worth a dime. But, admittedly, that's just me... Mark.
It certainly seems to be Friday. On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:27:08 +0000, "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com> said: > That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? > Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and > wants? ... There is no technical reason that it can't be > symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants. This is a self-fulling prophecy. As long as the edge networks have asymmetry built into them popular programs and services will be developed that are structured to account for this. As long as the popular programs and services are made like this, the "average user" will not know that they might want something different. It doesn't have to be this way, its an artefact of a choice on the part of the larger (mostly telephone company) ISPs in the 1990s. It also happens to suit capital because it is more obvious how to make money at the expense of the users with an asymmetric network and centralised "Web 2.0" style services. Thankfully the cracks are starting to show. I was pleased to hear the surprised and shocked praise when I installed a symmetric radio service to someone in the neighbourhood and it was no longer painful for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a server) is on good, symmetric bandwidth. These are just boring mundane applications. Imagine the more interesting ones that might emerge if the restriction of asymmetry was no longer commonplace... -w -- /"\ | William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk> \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign | School of Informatics X against HTML e-mail | University of Edinburgh / \ (still going) | http://tardis.ed.ac.uk/~wwaites/ -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:32:38 +0000, William Waites said:
for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a server) is on good, symmetric bandwidth.
There's no need for good symmetric bandwidth. There's just need for good bandwidth. If my video requires 5MBit/sec in each direction, I only need 5MBit/sec in each direction. So provisioning a 50/10 that has at least 5 idle on both sides is suitable, but a 50/50 that only has 3 available on one side because somebody else is using 47 for other stuff isn't suitable. Now, if all you use the circuit for is videoconferencing, then yes, you'll end up with effectively needing near-symmetric bandwidth. However, I'm not seeing any reason to expect that we're going to move away from downstream-heavy applications anytime soon.
William Waites wrote:
This is a self-fulling prophecy. As long as the edge networks have asymmetry built into them popular programs and services will be developed that are structured to >account for this. As long as the popular programs and services are made like this, the "average user" will not know that they might want something different.
This is so wrong headed I don't know where to begin. As an ISP I build the network to provide what consumers want, that is how you stay in business and attract customers.
It doesn't have to be this way, its an artefact of a choice on the part of the larger (mostly telephone company) ISPs in the 1990s. It also happens to suit capital because it >is more obvious how to make money at the expense of the users with an asymmetric network and centralised "Web 2.0" style services.
Wrong again. 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. I did not make more money because I sent traffic toward the user rather than up from the user. In fact, it cost us lots of money to beef up OUR connections to our Tier 1 providers to account for the high level of user download traffic. We would have loved it if all our users talked amongst themselves but that is not how the world works.
Thankfully the cracks are starting to show. I was pleased to hear the surprised and shocked praise when I installed a symmetric radio service to someone in the >neighbourhood and it was no longer painful for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a >server) is on good, symmetric bandwidth. These are just boring mundane applications. Imagine the more interesting ones that might emerge if the restriction of >asymmetry was no longer commonplace..
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. Steven Naslund Chicago IL .
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 23:24:17 +0000, "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@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 <wwaites@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.
>> 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
On 27/Feb/15 19:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:
That statement completely confuses me. Why is asymmetry evil? Does that not reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN does not reflect reality at all. Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K video to their friends UHD TV? Given that all transmission media has some sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download speed. There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a reflection of what the market wants. As an ISP I can tell you that a lot more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds. Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today? Don't tell me you want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that requires a faster transmission media.
The person at the other end of my Facetime call was frustrated that they couldn't see me when I took the call from my house (320Kbps up, ADSL) yet I could see them perfectly (4Mbps down, ADSL). Would I like for them to have been able to see me as I did them? Mark.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Bruce H McIntosh <bhm@ufl.edu> wrote:
The REAL evil in the ISP marketplace is, of course, essentially entirely unremarked-upon - ASYMMETRY.
Hi Bruce, We part ways there. I see nothing inherently wrong with asymmetric connections. I see nothing inherently wrong with whitelist-based services either: we'll sell you web access service, not general Internet service. I see nothing inherently wrong will selling measured-rate service: Gigabit port speed, $X/gigabyte prime time, free off prime. The idea that any particular Internet-related product must fit one specific mold like symmetry is abhorrent to me. BUT Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second. Monopoly abuse is Bad Behavior. Be it cross-subsidy (make competitive overbuilding impossible by covering infrastructure cost with funds from other high-margin products) product tying (that fiber optic channel is bundled with our version of Internet service alone) or double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you). These are the real evils in the ISP marketplace. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:56 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
double-billing (You, Mr. Disfavored Organization must pay for access to a customer base which has already paid us for access to you).
Imagine: We're sorry Mr. Homeowner, you do have a 200 amp electrical service but we limit power tool usage to 500 milliamps. We're in negotiation with Home Depot to increase that limit, so you should complain to them if you're unhappy. Surely you understand how unreasonable it is for Home Depot to sell you an electric drill and then pretend like we're supposed to provide you with electricity for it. -Bill -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Bill, This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per month. Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices. On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer
Hi Mel, Respectfully, that's a straw man argument. You alter the parameters of my criticism then proceed to show how the altered argument is unreasonable. All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the cleanup? They do. I have some unfortunate first-hand experience with this.
Anyone who doesn't understand [oversubscription] will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
You said it, not me. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
BIll, I have to take exception to your example. "All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the cleanup? They do." Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint. If someone decides to go to every house in an area served by a water tower and turns on all the faucets at the same time, that's malicious behavior and will exceed the pressure the tower can provide, but I think we'd all(?) agree that's malicious behavior and not customer demand. The only one of those that really works that way is electrical power and even then it's not usually a matter of the lack of transmission, but a lack of generation during hot periods. Further, I don't believe that you can get the power company/water/gas company to pay for a failure to meet a capacity demand. Your example of the sewer system is also very dependent on circumstances. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/21432309/sewage-spill-coon-rapids-homeowne... http://www.horizonservicesinc.com/reference/tips-articles/sewer-backup-cause... The most common point of contention is the lateral, which is almost always the home/business owner's responsibility http://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/sweatequity/article/Replacing-sewer-late... A much more apt comparison for over subscription is of the course normal POTS service, but again I am not aware of any recompense you can get from your phone company if you get an "All circuits are busy message", though you can of course complain to the FCC. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:54 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer
Hi Mel,
Respectfully, that's a straw man argument. You alter the parameters of my criticism then proceed to show how the altered argument is unreasonable.
All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the cleanup? They do.
I have some unfortunate first-hand experience with this.
Anyone who doesn't understand [oversubscription] will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
You said it, not me.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
I have to take exception to your example.
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi Scott, Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to meet peak "normal" demand? That would certainly make ISP operating models unique among public utilities. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Bill, The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger customer base nor the behavior of the global network. I work with hundreds of access providers in North America, the Caribbean, and Europe so I've pretty much all of the current approaches to this and none of them work very well IMO. I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access provider is going to and from Asia. This introduces a lot of variables that are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for this operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia get saturated far upstream of them? They certainly could choose to buy alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise rates and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed. BTW, the operator in this example has plenty capacity inside their DOCSIS and FTTH plant as well as plenty of capacity to two Tier 1 carriers. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
I have to take exception to your example.
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi Scott,
Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to meet peak "normal" demand? That would certainly make ISP operating models unique among public utilities.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger customer base nor the behavior of the global network.
Hi Scott, "Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do. "Reasonable" is whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two finds its error in your marketing department. If your understanding of normal and reasonable radically diverges from this, you've made a mistake. It's exactly as simple as this.
I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access provider is going to and from Asia. This introduces a lot of variables that are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for this operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia get saturated far upstream of them? They certainly could choose to buy alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise rates and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed.
So what are they doing? Playing it one-size-fits-all and giving this "very large" customer population no way to get acceptable speed to the portions of the Internet that population wants to reach? Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has prevented that from happening? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
'"Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do.' That's simply not a realistic definition. There's no way to determine what a consumer will want to do before they sign up for the service. For that matter, it's impossible to determine what a customer will want 2 years after they've signed. Further, its impossible to understand what is normal without spying on your customers. '"Reasonable" is whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two finds its error in your marketing department.' Reasonable pricing is what the market will bear as always, but what the market will bear versus what customers *expect* often greatly diverge. Anyone who wants to pay for a direct connection to a Tier 1 of their choice with SLAs can do so, but that's not that doesn't happen. 'Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has prevented that from happening?' They *are *the alternative operator in this market. What's keeping anyone else from doing it better is that it's more expensive than customers will pay to "do it better". Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger customer base nor the behavior of the global network.
Hi Scott,
"Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do. "Reasonable" is whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two finds its error in your marketing department.
If your understanding of normal and reasonable radically diverges from this, you've made a mistake. It's exactly as simple as this.
I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access provider is going to and from Asia. This introduces a lot of variables that are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for this operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia get saturated far upstream of them? They certainly could choose to buy alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise rates and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed.
So what are they doing? Playing it one-size-fits-all and giving this "very large" customer population no way to get acceptable speed to the portions of the Internet that population wants to reach?
Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has prevented that from happening?
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 27/02/2015 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
I have to take exception to your example.
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi Scott,
Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to meet peak "normal" demand? That would certainly make ISP operating models unique among public utilities.
Regards, Bill Herrin
I've worked on both data network (Canada's X.25 Datapac) and circuit-switched network provisioning (Nortel's DMS switches, and some of my contributions appear in the ITU-T Orange Book). Circuit-switched provisioning had the useful concept of "grade of service". This meant that you set a target probability of delay or loss for a given load level on the network (Average Busy Season Busy Hour, 10 High Day Busy Hour, separate targets for each and provision to the most binding). The same general concepts surely apply to IP network provisioning: you know you can't economically serve all the traffic at the absolute peak, but you set reasonable targets, assure yourself by simulation and analysis that your design will meet the target, and build accordingly. Tom Taylor
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here. We size the system to meet likely demand, but not peak demand. If it's a hot dry summer and everyone wants to water their lawn, or there's a big fire that's drawing a lot of water from hydrants, we can have capacity problems. We deal with it by interrupting service to a few large customers, a car wash and a golf course. But it's not really comparable to broadband service, because on the Internet, nearly every consumer end user device could easily saturate the entire network if it wanted to. It's like every house having a 100,000 gallon toilet. Better hope you don't have a lot of people flushing at once. R's, John
John, That's an excellent point. Consider Google fiber, for example. And customer could theoretically demand a gigabit of traffic. Even Google admits that this doesn't scale and that they are highly oversubscribed. -mel beckman On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:05 PM, "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here. We size the system to meet likely demand, but not peak demand. If it's a hot dry summer and everyone wants to water their lawn, or there's a big fire that's drawing a lot of water from hydrants, we can have capacity problems. We deal with it by interrupting service to a few large customers, a car wash and a golf course.
But it's not really comparable to broadband service, because on the Internet, nearly every consumer end user device could easily saturate the entire network if it wanted to. It's like every house having a 100,000 gallon toilet. Better hope you don't have a lot of people flushing at once.
R's, John
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.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> To: "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 5:44:02 PM Subject: Re: utility capacity, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality John, That's an excellent point. Consider Google fiber, for example. And customer could theoretically demand a gigabit of traffic. Even Google admits that this doesn't scale and that they are highly oversubscribed. -mel beckman On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:05 PM, "John Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand standpoint.
Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here. We size the system to meet likely demand, but not peak demand. If it's a hot dry summer and everyone wants to water their lawn, or there's a big fire that's drawing a lot of water from hydrants, we can have capacity problems. We deal with it by interrupting service to a few large customers, a car wash and a golf course.
But it's not really comparable to broadband service, because on the Internet, nearly every consumer end user device could easily saturate the entire network if it wanted to. It's like every house having a 100,000 gallon toilet. Better hope you don't have a lot of people flushing at once.
R's, John
Bill, In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world essential practice of oversubscription. Let's say you decide to start your own ISP, call it BillsNet. You buy a 1Gbps upstream pipe from Level3 for $6,000/month (a realistic price delivered to your facilities over fiber). You run wireless links to your customers via 100Mbps WiFi and a multi-gigabit redundant WiFi backbone, so that your only last-mile recurring cost is your labor to maintain your WISP network. Suppose, generously, that the going rate for 5x50Mbps broadband is $100/mo in your area (it's likely less). Only 20 customers can operate at full speed on this network (20 x 50Mbps = 1,000Mbps), so following your rule, you have to cap your income at $2,000/mo. You're losing $4,000/mo and you haven't yet spent a dime on salaries, hardware, deployment, or maintenance. I call this the "iron man" argument. ;) -mel On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:54 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer
Hi Mel,
Respectfully, that's a straw man argument. You alter the parameters of my criticism then proceed to show how the altered argument is unreasonable.
All utilities work by oversubscription: electric, natural gas, water and sewer. When the sewer authority fouls up their oversubscription model and your pee ends up in my basement, guess who pays for the cleanup? They do.
I have some unfortunate first-hand experience with this.
Anyone who doesn't understand [oversubscription] will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
You said it, not me.
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world essential practice of oversubscription.
You changed "whenever I demand it" to "all the time" and then proceeded to argue that if everybody used their whole bandwidth all the time, oversubscription wouldn't work and therefore Internet connections would cost thousands of dollars. Well sure, if every house used 200 amps all the time the electric gird would collapse. Yet somehow when my 120 amp tankless electric water heater kicks on for my morning shower I don't black out the city. How could that possibly be? It's a straw man, Mel. Own up to it and move on. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
Bill, I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time." Every house can't use its 200 amps at the same time, which happens when everyone turns on their AC on a hot day. The electrical grid is not built to the worst case scenario, and it does in fact break down when those events happen. Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it." If you demand it while the everyone is experiencing an HVAC-induced brownout on a hot day, your won't get it. Period. You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man argument too? -mel On Feb 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org<mailto:mel@beckman.org>> wrote: In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world essential practice of oversubscription. You changed "whenever I demand it" to "all the time" and then proceeded to argue that if everybody used their whole bandwidth all the time, oversubscription wouldn't work and therefore Internet connections would cost thousands of dollars. Well sure, if every house used 200 amps all the time the electric gird would collapse. Yet somehow when my 120 amp tankless electric water heater kicks on for my morning shower I don't black out the city. How could that possibly be? It's a straw man, Mel. Own up to it and move on. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com<mailto:herrin@dirtside.com> bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us> Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time."
Fine. You changed "whenever I demand it" to "at the same time as everybody else." The change still makes it a straw man argument. You introduce simultaneity, which you don't substantiate and which is not present in my statement. That red herring undermines your argument that doing, "everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice" at full rate is "infeasible."
Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it."
I get it _every_ time I demand it because the local power company has done a good job with their oversubscription planning. Even with other households engaged in bathing activity during the morning hours..
You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man argument too?
That would be why I ignored it, yes. Would it make you happy if I pick it apart piece by piece or do you want to move on? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
I'll move on. I'm sorry you're not interested in reasonable discussion. -mel beckman
On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:01 PM, "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote: I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time."
Fine. You changed "whenever I demand it" to "at the same time as everybody else." The change still makes it a straw man argument. You introduce simultaneity, which you don't substantiate and which is not present in my statement. That red herring undermines your argument that doing, "everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice" at full rate is "infeasible."
Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it."
I get it _every_ time I demand it because the local power company has done a good job with their oversubscription planning. Even with other households engaged in bathing activity during the morning hours..
You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man argument too?
That would be why I ignored it, yes. Would it make you happy if I pick it apart piece by piece or do you want to move on?
Regards, Bill Herrin
-- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
[Sorry for top-posting] I actually think you are both right and partially wrong. It IS the ISPs responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and you paid for. This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring Broadband America. http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second." While ISPs do take the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE. ASPs may have server/site issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance limitations, etc. What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the consumer QoE. - Kevin On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Bill,
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per month.
Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
Kevin, It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to provide you with X Mbps if that was advertised as "UP TO x Mbps" (which is exactly how every broadband provider advertises its service -- check your contract). We're not talking about the Internet's capacity here. We're talking about the physical limits of an ISPs own uplink connection to the Internet. That costs much more than the income from the number of users it takes to saturate the uplink. Any discussion of Internet backbone limitations, while these limitations do in fact exist, has nothing to do with ISP oversubscription, which some are claiming is deceitful. It's not deceitful, it's essential. See my earlier "iron man" example to Bill. -mel On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:49 AM, "McElearney, Kevin" <Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
[Sorry for top-posting]
I actually think you are both right and partially wrong. It IS the ISPs responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and you paid for. This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring Broadband America. http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second." While ISPs do take the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE. ASPs may have server/site issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance limitations, etc.
What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the consumer QoE.
- Kevin
On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Bill,
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per month.
Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
On 02/27/2015 11:57 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to provide you with X Mbps if that was advertised as "UP TO x Mbps" (which is exactly how every broadband provider advertises its service -- check your contract). We're not talking about the Internet's capacity here. We're talking about the physical limits of an ISPs own uplink connection to the Internet. That costs much more than the income from the number of users it takes to saturate the uplink.
If you want guarantees, you make sure your contract specifies those guarantees in the Service Level Agreement section. * Errored seconds * Minimum upstream bandwidth * Minimum downstream bandwidth The larger the bandwidth and fewer errored seconds, the higher the cost. With my "business-grade" cable service (Charter), I have *no* such guarantees. It's all "best effort". Indeed, with the SOHO/home grade equipment, you can't measure errored seconds at all -- if it's there, I haven't found it yet. Now, I run a mail server that serves my building, so my need is for more downstream capacity than upstream (I don't send a huge amount of mail). Unlike an ISP, I don't have people from the outside using POP or IMAP, so my mail server's outbound traffic is minimal. As for bulk data transfer, Dropbox works well enough with the asymmetric circuit. Even though there is no SLA, my service is better than the typical residential Internet provisioning. And I pay for that improvement, about 4x.
I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to "broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor CDNs. It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full documentation is released. FWIW, -a [*] http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-3322... On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
[Sorry for top-posting]
I actually think you are both right and partially wrong. It IS the ISPs responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and you paid for. This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring Broadband America. http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second." While ISPs do take the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE. ASPs may have server/site issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance limitations, etc.
What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the consumer QoE.
- Kevin
On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel@beckman.org> wrote:
Bill,
This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per month.
Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP practices.
On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> wrote:
Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second.
On 02/27/2015 12:44 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to "broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor CDNs. It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full documentation is released.
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? (#showerthought)
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.
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem. For instance, Comcast has (so far) provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my bill, and the few times I've had to deal with their support structure it's gone amazingly smoothly. However, I'm told that other people have wildly divergent user experiences with them... :)
Let's not discuss Comcast and its performance in the customer service department so not to completely sidetrack the discussion... Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:45:11 -0600, Mike Hammett said:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
That's unfortunately a very YMMV problem. For instance, Comcast has (so far) provided the bandwidth I pay for, deployed very usable IPv6, not screwed up my bill, and the few times I've had to deal with their support structure it's gone amazingly smoothly. However, I'm told that other people have wildly divergent user experiences with them... :)
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
What about ISPs that aren't world-class dicks?
They're still in business? In all seriousness though, that's a fair question. What are the downsides of Title II w/o tariffs for for ISPs who aren't engaging in Bad Behavior? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing letters to completely changing the language of something. Whenever that day comes... ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob McEwen" <rob@invaluement.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 8:50:16 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Fisher, I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA. btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? Rob McEwen On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
On 2/27/2015 8:55 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
They won't be available for days, weeks, months, etc. After the vote, they are subject to editorial review... which isn't so much editorial as whatever the hell they want. They could just be literally adding commas and capitalizing letters to completely changing the language of something.
Whenever that day comes...
I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things like CALEA. On the other hand, I hope they ban the ability to pay for ESPN3 at an ISP level. I'm tired of the complaints from ISPs who can't get it and I'm tired of paying a portion of other people's access to it. Jack
On 02/27/2015 07:09 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
I'm curious if the changes will effect the small ISPs concerning things like CALEA.
The first indications of any changes would be Cisco and Juniper announcing CALEA products in their low- and mid-line network products. Or there may be some near-startups that announce bolt-on network products to provide CALEA capability for those people who don't have deep pockets for new gear.
I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across, just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
Rob McEwen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
-- Scott
I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of: "We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good business practices on others" (As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.) I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out). Miles Fidelman Scott Fisher wrote:
I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across, just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
Rob McEwen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
The funniest thing about Verizon complaining about Title II, is that they used Title II to roll out their FIOS FTTP. I really am unsure of what they expected the outcome to be, and further proves the point of how big of a mess ISP¹s in this country are. Stephen Carter | IT Systems Administrator | Gun Lake Tribal Gaming Commission 1123 129th Avenue, Wayland, MI 49348 Phone 269.792.1773 On 2/27/15, 11:04 AM, "Miles Fidelman" <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:
"We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good business practices on others"
(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)
I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out).
Miles Fidelman
Scott Fisher wrote:
I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across, just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
Rob McEwen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-mov e-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
<br><hr><font face='Arial' color='Gray' size='1'>The information contained in this electronic transmission (email) is confidential information and may be subject to attorney/client privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS PROHIBITED, except by the intended recipient. Attempts to intercept this message are in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2511(1) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which subjects the interceptor to fines, imprisonment and/or civil damages.</font>
On 2/27/2015 11:04 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
[VERISON should say...] this won't effect us at all
Until those hundreds of pages are made public, how can anyone possibly know if that if that is even a truthful statement? Furthermore, what they SAY they intend to do with that authority... and what they COULD possibly do with such authority in the not-too-distant future... might be frighteningly different. FOR EXAMPLE... can I borrow your credit card? I'm just going to lock it in my safe and not use it until the next time we meet up again? (what I say I will do with it.. and what I COULD do with your credit card... could be frighteningly different!) <sarcasm>But since we they did such a great job rolling out Obamacare with no "unintended consequences", I'm sure their promises and good intentions for their use of the authority over the packets moving across PRIVATELY-OWNED internet infrastructure... that they just voted themselves... will be just peachy, right?</sarcasm> BTW - you should see my seashell collection... I keep it spread thoughout all the beaches of the entire world. Yesterday, I voted myself ownership over all of them. -- Rob McEwen
On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:04 , Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:
"We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our competitors, this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good business practices on others”
I think they’d be pretty hard pressed to say this with a straight face. Even if they could, anyone who is paying attention would know better.
(As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)
Verizon has been every bit as much involved in the let’s tax the big content providers for all we can games as any of the other eyeball providers.
I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of the day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband builds - Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni networks (even in places where they have no intention of building out).
They prefer to do this in ways the public is less likely to notice what they are doing. The last thing they want is a big public backlash against their backroom dealings with lawmakers on this matter. The fact that the president called them out on it publicly is pretty much game over for that tactic anyway. Owen
Miles Fidelman
Scott Fisher wrote:
I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across, just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen <rob@invaluement.com> wrote:
Scott Fisher,
I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as having supported SOPA.
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
Rob McEwen
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher <littlefishguy@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-impo...
-- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
It was in the FCC story: the rules (that thick book) will be published AFTER all the Commissoners have had a chance to write their pair-o-penny's worth and include their screeds with said publication. In other words, we have a month or two of quiet before the fur really starts to fly.
<snark>This PR reminds me of a story I heard about a few telegraph operators in the early 1930s. Mr. Nathan 'Nat' Flax and Mr. Hu Toob were telegraph operators for the mighty VerizonTelegraph Corporation. Misters Flax and Toob were able, through natural abilities and long practice, able to send telegraph messages faster than any other operators. They could dance their telegraph keys so fast that other operators, with lesser skills, could not reliably receive their messages. The VerizonTelegraph Corporation could have upgraded the skills of all of their operators to be able to receive these messages and then advertise their faster telegraph transmission speeds as a benefit to their customers. However, facing no competitive pressure for faster telegraph transmission speeds, the VerizonTelegraph Corporation decided instead to gum up the keys of Flax and Toob using inferior oils, sand, and bubblegum. Thus telegraph transmission speeds were slowed and the VerizonTelegraph Corporation went on to be the most successful telegraph company in the land today.</snark> -DMM On 02/27/2015 11:09 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? It was in the FCC story: the rules (that thick book) will be published AFTER all the Commissoners have had a chance to write their
On 02/27/2015 06:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: pair-o-penny's worth and include their screeds with said publication. In other words, we have a month or two of quiet before the fur really starts to fly.
On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where? You were allowed to see the proposed rules in the NPRM's appendix A. The R&O will state which of those were adopted, which were reconsidered after reading the public comments, etc. Watch docket 14-28 and when the R&O (or MR&O maybe) is released you'll be able to read that. The R&O will contain a pointer to which section of 47CFR the rules will be in, and you can get those from multiple places. The easiest way is through eCFR (www.ecfr.gov), a part of the GPO, which publishes all these sorts of things.
Now, the R&O isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out 47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR. Here's a link: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3f0ad879cf046fa8e4edd14261ef70f2&node=pt47.1.8&rgn=div5 That has got to be the smallest full section of 47CFR I've ever read.....
On 2015-02-27 12:58, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote: (*SNIP*)
Now, the R&O isn't available yet, but the regs themselves are. Check out 47CFR§8.1-17, already available through the eCFR. Here's a link: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=3f0ad879cf046fa8e4edd14261ef70f2&node=pt47.1.8&rgn=div5 Awesome. Thanks for the info!
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce H. McIntosh bhm@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida Network Services 352-273-1066
participants (73)
-
Adam Rothschild -
Aled Morris -
Barry Shein -
Bob Evans -
Bruce H McIntosh -
Christopher Morrow -
Chuck Church -
Clayton Zekelman -
Colin Johnston -
Collin Anderson -
Daniel Taylor -
Dave Taht -
David Bass -
David Conrad -
David Miller -
Donald Kasper -
Frank Bulk -
Gary Buhrmaster -
Gary Wardell -
Ian Bowers -
Jack Bates -
James R Cutler -
Jay Ashworth -
Jim Richardson -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Greco -
Joe Hamelin -
Joe Loiacono -
joel jaeggli -
John Levine -
John Osmon -
John R. Levine
-
Keith Medcalf -
Lamar Owen -
Livingood, Jason -
Lyndon Nerenberg -
Majdi S. Abbas -
manning bill -
Mark Andrews -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew Kaufman -
McElearney, Kevin -
Mel Beckman -
Michael Hallgren -
Michael O Holstein -
Michael Thomas -
Mike Hale -
Mike Hammett -
Miles Fidelman -
Måns Nilsson -
N. Max Pierson -
Naslund, Steve -
Nick Hilliard -
Owen DeLong -
Philip Dorr -
Ray Soucy -
rdrake -
Rich Kulawiec -
Rob McEwen -
Scott Brim -
Scott Fisher -
Scott Helms -
Stephen R. Carter -
Stephen Satchell -
Stephen Sprunk -
Steve Clark -
Tei -
Tim Franklin -
Tom Taylor -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
wbn -
William Herrin -
William Waites