From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D051A21F756 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 13:43:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by gateway1.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1649A222E8; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:43:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=imap.cc; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=GK1pcW4ZQ6GmFkqLZQGUWSLy NrY=; b=KaDdVZoJ4RH46PBw/Xb0J8uOROB5bQ42IhvC3jcHLIgUyWZC5FnIO4mg Z/+XEtycVvThNcrnx0Eu1ihaSdHHMXdD0/RKDUIrn4hRHjjwtIxgQIdsaGOqgBQB J5d+IxK6A+t3kaKXnySxTVMXRBjNdrgbPuBgKBXUf/HeQ6PlQiE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; s=smtpout; bh=GK1p cW4ZQ6GmFkqLZQGUWSLyNrY=; b=puNsqaFos7cmJkXQKAhkfq+i329pBeVuQPDu Z0GvVNr31Or94e+mLZvCnaFWNurvL88Cmf99LmqiSD31wgjxX2u+5bnkhBW6NuJi /LAOEtZgK9gG31L5YCQaTqOorDp7d5K4fERnpz5FXpmZF32NgamQFvjeuGasgQry 2nM91vA= X-Sasl-enc: 9NomBVweh+crea68PlLDxAngtazEq9SjDgkKlmaDV9V2 1406925819 Received: from [172.30.42.8] (unknown [2.99.242.48]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 44DE9680560; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:43:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53DBFBF7.8000903@imap.cc> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 21:43:35 +0100 From: Fred Stratton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Taht , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <53DBEFD9.7010705@imap.cc> In-Reply-To: <53DBEFD9.7010705@imap.cc> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000002010301060308050005" Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] How is DSL sold and bandwidth managed in the UK? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:43:42 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------000002010301060308050005 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Perhaps I should add that ADSL2plus services are generally not speed-limited, as well as being mostly uncapped. There are exceptions. Free Sky broadband for Sky TV customers is capped at 2GB per month. Primus, a Canadian company reknown for cheap offerings, has a capped option alongside an uncapped one on TalkTalk infrastrucure. OpenReach offers 40/2 40/10 and 80/10 megabits/s as fibre options. Competitors tend not to offer the middle option. FTTH is capped at circa 350/? megabits/s. BT Retail will install on a per home or business basis from the existing FTTC. On 01/08/14 20:51, Fred Stratton wrote: > I shall attempt an answer, probably to a slightly different question > to the one you are actually asking. > > Remember, the UK is a member state of the EU. > > Cable cost too much to install in the 1980s, partially causing the > demise of Nynex. Cable is routed underground here, like most > services. All cable, which covers most major cities, out as far as > here in the suburbs, is run by Virgin Media. No price competition. > Lost a lot of video content to BT and Sky. Probably price competitive > with Sky satellite TV. Tiered bandwidth offering, comparable to fibre > in speed, heavily traffic-shaped. > > The telecom operator BT has no state involvement. > > BT is comprised of two parts. One is BT Retail, which has circa 38 per > cent of the retail market. > > The other part is the supposedly separate OpenReach, which owns and > maintains infrastructure, and sells services to 3rd parties. AFAIK, BT > Wholesale also sells telephony services to third parties on top of > OpenReach services. > > Because of its dominant position, the regulator, OfCom, regulates > OpenReach prices for services to third party service providers. > > It is currently investigating fibre prices, on the basis that these > are too high. > > Not all services come via BT. TalkTalk has the most separated > infrastructure. Sky uses OpenReach fibre backhaul. > > Local Loop Unbundling means that there are eight or so different > DSLAMs in each telephone exchange. Sky and TalkTalk in addition have > their own non OpenReach voice telephony equipment. > > There are two tiers of ISP. > > One is composed of the big players. These are BT Retail, Sky and > TalkTalk. BT Retail have 5 brands operating as separate entities, > including Plusnet, notable for carrier grade NAT and traffic shaping. > None have caps or download limits. > > These three are focused around content delivery, principally video. > The service is cheap, with a plug in gateway provided. Contracts are > generally for one year. Customer service is hopeless. You are paid > inducements and cashback to change provider. Whilst the ADSL price is > cheap, the cost of the phone line is steadily ratcheting up. > > If the price of a service increases by 10 per cent or more in a year, > the retail customer can leave the ISP, whatever the contract says. > > I am obliged to pay money to a public corporation, the BBC. These are > a major online video content provider, and the main competitor to the > three main ISPs for content. These ISPs pay fees to Akamai principally > to access iPlayer, and complain about it. > > The others are the smaller players such as EE, and boutique providers > like Zen and AAISP. > > EE, or Everything Everywhere, are T-Mobile and Orange, a combined > unit in the UK providing mobile telephony, and internet services over > the BT network. BT Wholesale, I think, provide and run their > infrastructure. > > Zen and AAISP provide a good service over lines rented from OpenReach > or TalkTalk. They have customer dervice and respond to faults. They > cost ten times as much as the big three, because they make their money > by charging for bandwidth. There are many others in this category. > Some provide ipv6. > > Retail customers find deals through sites such as this > > http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/phones/cheap-broadband > > The fibre infrastrucure has been rolled out by BT. Fujitsu, and > Digital Region, a public enterprise, have pulled out or folded. > > Sky and TalkTalk currently use OpenReach infrastructure for fibre, but > are introducing some of their own cabinets as a joint experiment. > > OpenReach FTTC uses Huawei or ECI MSANs. I have fibre cabinets 200 > metres in either direction along the road. > > CPE for ADSL is customer installed, and is generally a > TrendChip/Ralink or BroadCom based device with the usual driver BLOBs, > a 2.6 series kernel, and telnet access. > > CPE for VDSL/FTTC is the official network endpint for fibre, rather > than the wall plate. The boxes provided are either Huawei HG612, or an > ECI equivalent. > > These are cut down gateways without wireless, configured as VDSL2 > 'modems'. The HG 612 Is Broadcom based and has been unlocked. I have > used one on an ADSL2plus line. Source code is available, even some > Broadcom code released in error by Huawei. The ECI box is Lantiq > based, and blogic has had OpenWRT running on it. There are > configuration problems with uboot, so this not stable. > > This partly answers your question. Note also I have said nothing about > mobile internet. > > > > On 01/08/14 19:12, Dave Taht wrote: >> uknof list: >> >> There has been a long discussion on the cerowrt-devel list about >> how/when/ and where to get bufferbloat related fixes into the head >> ends and CPE, and it's confusing as to who can and what sort of >> devices controls what, >> >> The uk seems to have a vibrant dsl based isp market all getting stuff >> from BT. >> >> How does it work in Britain? I am under the impression that there are >> a lot of HFSC + SFQ based rate limiters there for various classes of >> service >> >> See below for some open questions on the role of the DSLAM, the BRAS, >> etc... >> >> Or see "the ideas on how to simplify and popularize bufferbloat >> control" thread: >> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2014-July/thread.html >> >> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Sebastian Moeller > > wrote: >> >> Hi MIchael, >> >> On Aug 1, 2014, at 06:51 , Michael Richardson > > wrote: >> >> > >> > Sebastian Moeller > wrote: >> >> No idea? How would you test this (any command line to >> try). The good >> >> thingg with the ping is that often even the DSLAM responds keeping >> >> external sources (i.e. hops further away in the network) of >> variability >> >> out of the measurement... >> > >> > With various third-party-internet-access ("TPIA" in Canada), >> the DSLAM >> > is operated by the incumbent (monopoly) telco, and the layer-3 >> first hop >> > is connected via PPPoE-VLAN or PPP/L2TP. >> >> So they "own" the copper lines connecting each customer >> to the DSLAM? And everybody else just rents their DSL service and >> resells them? Do they really connect to the DSLAM or to the BRAS? >> >> > The incumbent telco has significant >> > incentive to make the backhaul network as congested and >> bufferbloated as >> > possible, and to mis-crimp cables so that the DSL resyncs at >> different speeds >> > regularly... >> >> I think in Germany the incumbent has to either rent out >> the copper lines to competitors (who can put their own lines >> cards in DSLAMs backed by their own back-bone) or rent >> "bit-stream" access that is the incumbent handles the DSL part on >> both ends and passes the traffic either in the next central >> office or at specific transit points. I always assumed >> competitors renting these services would get much better >> guarantees than end-customers, but it seems in Canada the >> incumbent has more found ways to evade efficient regulation. >> >> > my incumbent telco's commercial LAN extension salesperson >> > proudly told me how they never drop packets, even when their >> links are >> > congested!!! >> >> I really hope this is the opinion of a sales person and >> not the network operators who really operate the gear in the >> "field". On the other hand having sufficient buffering in the >> DSLAM to never having to drop a packet sounds quite manly (and a >> terrible waste of otherwise fine DRAM chips) ;) >> >> > >> > The Third Party ISP has a large incentive to deploy equipment >> that supports >> > whatever "bandwidth measurement" service we might cook up. >> >> As much as I would like to think otherwise, the only way >> to get a BMS in the field is if all national regulators require >> it by law (well maybe if ITU would bake it into the next xDSL >> standard that the DSLAM has to report current line speeds as per >> SNMP? back to all down stream devices asking for it). But I am >> not holding my breath... >> >> Best Regards >> Sebastian >> >> > >> > -- >> > Michael Richardson >> > -on the road- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Täht >> >> NSFW: >> https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cerowrt-devel mailing list >> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > _______________________________________________ > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel --------------000002010301060308050005 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Perhaps I should add that ADSL2plus services are generally not speed-limited, as well as being mostly uncapped.

There are exceptions. Free Sky broadband for Sky TV customers is capped at 2GB per month.

Primus, a Canadian company reknown for cheap offerings, has a capped option alongside an uncapped one on TalkTalk infrastrucure.

OpenReach offers 40/2 40/10 and 80/10 megabits/s as fibre options. Competitors tend not to offer the middle option.

FTTH is capped at circa 350/? megabits/s. BT Retail will install on a per home or business basis from the existing FTTC.


On 01/08/14 20:51, Fred Stratton wrote:
I shall attempt an answer, probably to a slightly different question to the one you are actually asking.

Remember, the UK is a member state of the EU.

Cable cost too much to install in the 1980s, partially causing the demise of Nynex. Cable is routed underground here, like most services.  All cable, which covers most major cities, out as far as here in the suburbs,  is run by Virgin Media. No price competition. Lost a lot of video content to BT and Sky. Probably price competitive with Sky satellite TV.  Tiered bandwidth offering, comparable to fibre in speed, heavily traffic-shaped.

The telecom operator BT has no state involvement.

BT is comprised of two parts. One is BT Retail, which has circa 38 per cent of the retail market.

The other part is the supposedly separate OpenReach, which owns and maintains infrastructure, and sells services to 3rd parties. AFAIK, BT Wholesale also sells telephony services to third parties on top of OpenReach services.

Because of its dominant position, the regulator, OfCom, regulates OpenReach prices for services to third party service providers.

It is currently investigating fibre prices, on the basis that these are too high.

Not all services come via BT. TalkTalk has the most separated infrastructure. Sky uses OpenReach fibre backhaul.

Local Loop Unbundling means that there are eight or so different DSLAMs in each telephone exchange.  Sky and TalkTalk in addition have their own non OpenReach voice telephony equipment.

There are two tiers of ISP.

One is composed of the big players. These are BT Retail, Sky and TalkTalk. BT Retail have 5 brands operating as separate entities, including Plusnet, notable for carrier grade NAT and traffic shaping. None have caps or download limits.

These three are focused around content delivery, principally video. The service is cheap, with a plug in gateway provided. Contracts are generally for one year. Customer service is hopeless. You are paid inducements and cashback to change provider. Whilst the ADSL price is cheap, the cost of the phone line is steadily ratcheting up.

If the price of a service increases by 10 per cent or more in a year, the retail customer can leave the ISP, whatever the contract says.

I am obliged to pay money to a public corporation, the BBC. These are a major online video content provider, and the main competitor to the three main ISPs for content. These ISPs pay fees to Akamai principally to access iPlayer, and complain about it.

The others are the smaller players such as EE, and boutique providers like Zen and AAISP.

EE, or Everything  Everywhere, are T-Mobile and Orange, a combined unit in the UK providing mobile telephony, and internet services over the BT network. BT Wholesale, I think, provide and run their infrastructure.

Zen and AAISP provide a good service over lines rented from OpenReach or TalkTalk. They have customer dervice and respond to faults. They cost ten times as much as the big three, because they make their money by charging for bandwidth. There are many others in this category. Some provide ipv6.

Retail customers find deals through sites such as this

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/phones/cheap-broadband

The fibre infrastrucure has been rolled out by BT. Fujitsu, and Digital Region, a public enterprise, have pulled out or folded.

Sky and TalkTalk currently use OpenReach infrastructure for fibre, but are introducing some of their own cabinets as a joint experiment.

OpenReach FTTC uses Huawei or ECI MSANs. I have fibre cabinets 200 metres in either direction along the road.

CPE for ADSL is customer installed, and is generally a TrendChip/Ralink or BroadCom based device with the usual driver BLOBs, a 2.6 series kernel, and telnet access.

CPE for VDSL/FTTC is the official network endpint for fibre, rather than the wall plate. The boxes provided are either Huawei HG612, or an ECI equivalent.

These are cut down gateways without wireless, configured as VDSL2 'modems'. The HG 612 Is Broadcom based and has been unlocked. I have used one on an ADSL2plus line. Source code is available, even some Broadcom code released in error by Huawei. The ECI box is Lantiq based, and blogic has had OpenWRT running on it. There are configuration problems with uboot, so this not stable.

This partly answers your question. Note also I have said nothing about mobile internet.



On 01/08/14 19:12, Dave Taht wrote:
uknof list:

There has been a long discussion on the cerowrt-devel list about how/when/ and where to get bufferbloat related fixes into the head ends and CPE, and it's confusing as to who can and what sort of devices controls what, 

The uk seems to have a vibrant dsl based isp market all getting stuff from BT.

How does it work in Britain? I am under the impression that there are a lot of HFSC + SFQ based rate limiters there for various classes of service

See below for some open questions on the role of the DSLAM, the BRAS, etc...

Or see "the ideas on how to simplify and popularize bufferbloat control" thread:

https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/cerowrt-devel/2014-July/thread.html

On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi MIchael,

On Aug 1, 2014, at 06:51 , Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:

>
> Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>      No idea? How would you test this (any command line to try). The good
>> thingg with the ping is that often even the DSLAM responds keeping
>> external sources (i.e. hops further away in the network) of variability
>> out of the measurement...
>
> With various third-party-internet-access ("TPIA" in Canada),  the DSLAM
> is operated by the incumbent (monopoly) telco, and the layer-3 first hop
> is connected via PPPoE-VLAN or PPP/L2TP.

        So they “own” the copper lines connecting each customer to the DSLAM? And everybody else just rents their DSL service and resells them? Do they really connect to the DSLAM or to the BRAS?

> The incumbent telco has significant
> incentive to make the backhaul network as congested and bufferbloated as
> possible, and to mis-crimp cables so that the DSL resyncs at different speeds
> regularly…

        I think in Germany the incumbent has to either rent out the copper lines to competitors (who can put their own lines cards in DSLAMs backed by their own back-bone) or rent “bit-stream” access that is the incumbent handles the DSL part on both ends and passes the traffic either in the next central office or at specific transit points. I always assumed competitors renting these services would get much better guarantees than end-customers, but it seems in Canada the incumbent has more found ways to evade efficient regulation.

> my incumbent telco's commercial LAN extension salesperson
> proudly told me how they never drop packets, even when their links are
> congested!!!

        I really hope this is the opinion of a sales person and not the network operators who really operate the gear in the “field”. On the other hand having sufficient buffering in the DSLAM to never having to drop a packet sounds quite manly (and a terrible waste of otherwise fine DRAM chips) ;)

>
> The Third Party ISP has a large incentive to deploy equipment that supports
> whatever "bandwidth measurement" service we might cook up.

        As much as I would like to think otherwise, the only way to get a BMS in the field is if all national regulators require it by law (well maybe if ITU would bake it into the next xDSL standard that the DSLAM has to report current line speeds as per SNMP? back to all down stream devices asking for it). But I am not holding my breath…

Best Regards
        Sebastian

>
> --
> Michael Richardson
> -on the road-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel



--
Dave Täht

NSFW: https://w2.eff.org/Censorship/Internet_censorship_bills/russell_0296_indecent.article 


_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel




_______________________________________________
Cerowrt-devel mailing list
Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel

--------------000002010301060308050005--