Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[Frantisek Borsik <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7935 bytes --]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-mitchell-79078b5 and the like are
doing a pretty good job (given the circumstances) here in the US. At least,
that’s my understanding of his work.


All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik


https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com





On 28 March 2023 at 7:47:33 PM, rjmcmahon (rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com) wrote:

> Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this
> (structural separation) right.
>
> Pre-coaxial cable & contract carriage, the FCC licensed spectrum to the
> major media companies and placed a news obligation on them for these OTA
> rights. A society can't run a democracy well without quality and factual
> information to the constituents. Sadly, contract carriage got rid of
> that news as a public service obligation as predicted by Eli Noam.
> http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html Hence we get January
> 6th and an insurrection.
>
> It takes a staff of 300 to produce 30 minutes of news three times a day.
> The co-axial franchise agreements per each city traded this obligation
> for a community access channel and a small studio, and annual franchise
> fees. History has shown this is insufficient for a city to provide
> quality news to its citizens. Community access channels failed
> miserably.
>
> Another requirement was two cables so there would be "competition" in
> the coaxial offerings. This rarely happened because of natural monopoly
> both in the last mile and in negotiating broadcast rights (mostly for
> sports.) There is only one broadcast rights winner, e.g. NBC for the
> Olympics, and only one last mile winner. That's been proven empirically
> in the U.S.
>
> Now cities are dependent on those franchise fees for their budgets. And
> the cable cos rolled up to a national level. So it's mostly the FCC that
> regulates all of this where they care more about Janet Jackson's breast
> than providing accurate news to help a democracy function well.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy
>
> It gets worse as people are moving to unicast networks for their "news."
> But we're really not getting news at all, we're gravitating to emotional
> validations per our dysfunctions. Facebook et al happily provide this
> because it sells more ads. And then the major equipment providers claim
> they're doing great engineering because they can carry "AI loads!!" and
> their stock goes up in value. This means ads & news feeds that trigger
> dopamine hits for addicts are driving the money flows. Which is a sad
> theme for undereducated populations.
>
> And ChatGPT is not the answer for our lack of education and a public
> obligation to support those educations, which includes addiction
> recovery programs, and the ability to think critically for ourselves.
>
> Bob
>
> Here is an old (2014) post on Stockholm to my class "textbook":
>
> https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html
>
>
> [1]
> Stockholm: 19 years of municipal broadband success [1]
> The Stokab report should be required reading for all local government
> officials. Stockholm is one of the top Internet cities in the worl...
>
> cis471.blogspot.com
>
> -------------------------
>
> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 2:11 PM
> To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
> Cc: dan <dandenson@gmail.com>; Frantisek Borsik
> <frantisek.borsik@gmail.com>; libreqos
> <libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Dave Taht via Starlink
> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>;
> bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure
> w/Comcast chat
>
> Hi David,
>
> On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
>
> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital
>
> communications infrastructure as life support critical.
>
>
> Well, let's keep things in perspective, unlike power, water
>
> (fresh and waste), and often gas, communications infrastructure is
> mostly not critical yet. But I agree that we are clearly on a path in
> that direction, so it is time to look at that from a different
> perspective.
>
> Personally, I am a big fan of putting the access network into
>
> communal hands, as these guys already do a decent job with other
> critical infrastructure (see list above, plus roads) and I see a PtP
> fiber access network terminating in some CO-like locations a viable
> way to allow ISPs to compete in the internet service field all the
> while using the communally build access network for a few. IIRC this
> is how Amsterdam organized its FTTH roll-out. Just as POTS wiring has
> beed essentially unchanged for decades, I estimate that current fiber
> access lines would also last for decades requiring no active component
> changes in the field, making them candidates for communal management.
> (With all my love for communal ownership and maintenance, these
> typically are not very nimble and hence best when we talk about life
> times of decades).
>
>
> This is happening in some places (the town where I live is doing
>
> such a rollout), but the incumbant ISPs are fighting this and in many
> states have gotten laws created that prohibit towns from building such
> systems.
>
> A resistance that in the current system is understandable*...
> btw, my point is not wanting to get rid of ISPs, I really just think
> that the access network is more of a natural monopoly and if we want
> actual ISP competition, the access network is the wrong place to
> implement it... as it is unlikely that we will see multiple ISPs
> running independent fibers to all/most dwelling units... There are two
> ways I see to address this structural problem:
> a) require ISPs to rent the access links to their competitors for
> "reasonable" prices
> b) as I proposed have some non-ISP entity build and maintain the
> access network
>
> None of these is terribly attractive to current ISPs, but we already
> see how the economically more attractive PON approach throws a spanner
> into a), on a PON the competitors might get bitstream access, but will
> not be able to "light up" the fiber any way they see fit (as would be
> possible in a PtP deployment, at least in theory). My subjective
> preference is b) as I mentioned before, as I think that would offer a
> level playing field for ISPs to compete doing what they do best, offer
> internet access service while not pushing the cost of the access
> network build-out to all-fiber onto the ISPs. This would allow a
> fairer, less revenue driven approach to select which areas to convert
> to FTTH first....
>
> However this is pretty much orthogonal to Bob's idea, as I understand
> it, as this subthread really is only about getting houses hooked up to
> the internet and ignores his proposal how to do the in-house network
> design in a future-proof way...
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
> *) I am not saying such resistance is nice or the right thing, just
> that I can see why it is happening.
>
>
> David Lang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!vFtTwFdYBTFjrJCFqT0rp0o2dtaz2m-dskeRLX2dIW_Pujge6ZU8eOIxtkN_spTDlqyyzClrVbEMFFbvL3NlUgIHOg$
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12428 bytes --]