nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
From: William Waites <wwaites () tardis ed ac uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:32:38 +0000 (GMT)
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.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, (continued)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Jack Bates (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Bruce H McIntosh (Feb 27)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Michael Thomas (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Christopher Morrow (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Miles Fidelman (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mark Tinka (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Waites (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 27)
- RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Naslund, Steve (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Waites (Feb 28)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mark Tinka (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Herrin (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Herrin (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Mel Beckman (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Herrin (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Scott Helms (Feb 27)
- Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality William Herrin (Feb 27)
