From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (unknown [66.167.227.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AD783CB40; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 13:13:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 553311817E6; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:13:07 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: dan cc: Dave Taht , Dave Taht via Starlink , Doc Searls , Dave Collier-Brown , libreqos , bloat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1d6c10c9a692bb3f2869fb1b40fa449a@rjmcmahon.com> <8301258b8fffa18bd14279bff043dd03@rjmcmahon.com> <43bcbc338aecb44a1bef49489ab6f9c8@rjmcmahon.com> <60e70b637df76234639780ab08f25d82@rjmcmahon.com> <9edd011a1a6615470b34e0837896a15f@rjmcmahon.com> <6EB62755-EF23-44BA-B2FF-66FAC708653D@gmx.de> <6qnq34os-3qss-s4q7-s286-2s49q890q920@ynat.uz> <27aea5070eeb1b1535f3e75489295feb@rjmcmahon.com> <08526EAC-7EA3-4BFA-A231-B2935E09C8AC@gmx.de> <716ECAAD-E2EE-4647-9E73-D60BF8BF9C1E@searls.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="===============1254419123039073848==" Subject: Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 17:13:08 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --===============1254419123039073848== Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote: > The obvious solution is to foster competition. Anywhere you overlay cable > companies with fiber BOTH companies remain and compete against each other > and the cable company increases upload speeds. If fiber was so naturally > superior, the cable companies would be erased. I have MSP customers in > multiple markets with competing techs and it's VERY nice to be able to get > fiber and cable or terragraph and cable to a business for resilience. I > cannot do that on single product dominated markets. The 'exchange' model > above doesn't do it because of that single point of failure of the > municipal fiber. The problem is that laying cable (or provisioning wifi access to cover the area) is expensive, and if you try to have multiple different companies doing it, they each need a minimum density of users to make it worth their while. In the current monopoly approach, they are required by contract to serve less profitable areas in order to be given the monopoly for the profitable ones, take away that monopoly, and further dilute the user density by having multiple companies provide service, and the result isn't good. Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results aren't pretty. Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and power lines in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving to the regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos (including deliberate sabatage of competitors) I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get fast cable service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, and I can still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) a wireless ISP as a backup David Lang --===============1254419123039073848== Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64 Content-ID: <07830nps-24s9-p8q9-7r6p-6ons0ppr09p8@ynat.uz> Content-Description: Content-Disposition: INLINE X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KQmxvYXQgbWFp bGluZyBsaXN0CkJsb2F0QGxpc3RzLmJ1ZmZlcmJsb2F0Lm5ldApodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLmJ1ZmZl cmJsb2F0Lm5ldC9saXN0aW5mby9ibG9hdAo= --===============1254419123039073848==--