Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>]

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.