From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E0B3B2A4; Sun, 2 Apr 2023 08:00:13 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1680436806; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=0y+313KQG96sfGWMrgXLCtpeeuzgAZZTsnYTqXg0KB4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=GvqDPOCt5ISznGoFbua5Dr6qTLJbLQ2BUU+hI+TxbTz1AayAEycjZz1MPc3K52Fwn VBHUyVhD/aKe0VjfDMBw8ytFpre0IQB9u7OMm6FeIfpUdaG7iwm4tjZ008YM4SwjPG XwTWq3e+/07TCAk2jgGn5nYzNWSapWm6j+R89GUTy/Vj94B6PpZMBxhQ03msXfsBMm wpEfC2jmxQ5vfvpSPtQM4uLXvIN0O52WGI9gZdBjmC57Gz3/BXg0MM6Ah5wavy0vm4 WsxYqtctOGSU7+QxLxhIJ2d4EKt1qX3wrXJHYRV2ySgR3efheIL2abveZaCUqs3CUl HhlMRondH9zKA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.3.68.204]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MSbx3-1pp9dX2Pjl-00SzPL; Sun, 02 Apr 2023 14:00:06 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.2\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2023 14:00:05 +0200 Cc: David Lang , Dave Collier-Brown , libreqos , Dave Taht via Starlink Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5A3BA6F4-A144-4036-9A1B-1553CF00A6C8@gmx.de> 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> To: dan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Y34zX3PNI1CO641TkPeT2oT2Esc3Y7lkpljJ8p0ERCJFzbeUBOJ ript10O0GHjlL23oQAmdxzOIfpqcEHEBGXR60sRB8OmSAKlTnYd7tX7b4L0jLSbA6p2+SEV VTLA6loH3lV93GHjmweVXtduOF4yYHgWmz+AERLaYnwYf/zssCjqSNMAn+gsynpk+MCd3ph J4oP0jDxHZPF9vxvXJhOA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:d4Dmj6JUVJk=;toPfQRMe88sJV9hnOu7CBN+/clp GgQC+PEc2k8N467x9TirrYwkTI04fZ2Fm7N4ykgdObXSNhj6NHpfYi49N+VHIEQCArIhAzZbb dHzvTk/P/Y/FL3K0UyF2+kiwJSPw5cLAmjBFzviwqn7yrgQEWHiqzSoHm2pQZiX5CUTDRXB8C 7hUKoAtxnu/6MHXganTCFx4uS6wx8dTEM1hFe9aHuRe6yYOJo8KyIPPJu7bSZWNAHhJ5ULHk7 idomPMd6VybHFPjzAKHFptnRY/2/bPXvDtlEYbbD5VlPHzZjbn02Ye5D3R4jsYC7WanDa3X5s riu41qOZICfoYOuNzETNUGkLvCK0P+msFn2xUWpOZro1ZO9kv3gM/DyemHhwxX5gZYVuMjKR+ CQAtiG8xym8bPh7N9Z0t2lEx6qDuvvDeGIeN4iC9bOFGAsZt7hWukV25U8gNxPsxqTt1TJi4q CyzTEWO8hP6i2WwjtGx/5R3/0KgQs0pI8ctzg91jRWnbPtlLdVpAQdeMCntElQ5xiRBLTbPqe FJSdkw6DCGyHQnIpVtNoAEqWCzSga63X3Xyrpme24hTeN4fKYL5zHu8ltpg3JdnTl6uO9Q4he w9aG1lVv9Q4wMr+w6ea8rhyloGeT5d0/xLCyxHD6OQTKd1kfHcITcXqTOBOxRcpzjZ0EvhJV7 zBTWJeV2hBovXN5PFn0W9IvA66WJw9MUspoprkhF8ZWNUEt0XZ77H6fJA7csQOY+D0FnsMbGL f04Wz5vzKpQRga4kiHr2sc1POzR+8nVCISc9RgThyHduz6iRMSVSMYnwZ3uFrXa6q1NsF9PY2 ZJuw0ML5418Y7xcLzXLxUh8RmGtkkxLrfFLlJRqPmkFX3T+I4Zwb78tkBAqoXaZ8AVZV3W4JB wSMthkrpOU0ddwEKzynikw20AXWdAcvOCLxGJL0o7c/Dke+mnn6eHot9UjMQtkIWIFHnKeZ+v 1qOgGoiHMEVa8qDoEjOQIx3d67s= Subject: Re: [LibreQoS] [Starlink] [Bloat] Enabling a production model X-BeenThere: libreqos@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Many ISPs need the kinds of quality shaping cake can do List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2023 12:00:13 -0000 Hi Dan, > On Mar 29, 2023, at 19:34, dan via Starlink = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Mar 29, 2023 at 11:13:07 AM, David Lang wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote: >>=20 >> Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results = aren't pretty.=20 >> Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and = power lines=20 >> in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving = to the=20 >> regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos = (including=20 >> deliberate sabatage of competitors) >>=20 >> I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get = fast cable=20 >> service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, = and I can=20 >> still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) = a wireless=20 >> ISP as a backup >>=20 >> David Lang >> _______________________________________________ >> Bloat mailing list >> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >=20 > When you said =E2=80=98even with=E2=80=99 you negated the previous = point. =E2=80=98Even with=E2=80=99 incredible density the monopoly = structure of broadband in America today makes competition = beaurocratically hard. That should be the place where we see fierce = competition. Or, that should be the place the fiber has completely = wiped out cable, yet it hasn=E2=80=99t. There are only so many = conclusions available here. Fiber isn=E2=80=99t actually that much = better than cable, or the monopolies have non-monetary protections so = competition can=E2=80=99t move in, or maybe those areas are already = properly served =F0=9F=98=95 . Let's rephrase that, DOCSIS HFC networks currently allow = sufficient service quality (aka speed, but we all agree that it is not = actually "speed" nor what end-users should desire ;) ) to allow prices = that make it economically problematic to deploy other costly access = networks. This is orthogonal to the fact that in the intermediate turn = fiber will become more attractive as is is getting harder to increase = the rate of copper infrastructure (g.fast, docsis 4.0) taking more and = more heroic efforts, signal processing and power consumption. So the = point is IMHO not fiber or something else, but only when fiber... ;) (I = agree that both DOCSIS and VDSL2 can work just fine for today, but = neither is terribly future proof, and both are essentially in the = process of moving fiber closer and closer to the end-points already). So = IMHO the long game clearly is fiber, and macro-economically every dollar = spent on extension of copper networks instead of deploying fiber is a = dollar wasted... (it still can be micro-economically in the interest of = a company to extend the life of a copper plant). > The commonality in non-rural or small-town-rural areas that have = connectivity struggles is the monopoly that is in the way. Rural areas = often have few options because the returns aren=E2=80=99t there for big = companies, but they are for small companies if they were actually able = to get into those markets. If you build in a monopoly in the rural = areas, when they grow they will have the same issue the urban areas = have, a monopoly that was paid to deliver last decades services and the = only way they=E2=80=99ll upgrade is either government money and = mandates, or competition which you=E2=80=99ve prevented. =20 The point is that (reasonably) fast access networks are "natural = monopolies" that is if one ISP has wired-up a dwelling unit it becomes = harder to justify the cost for additional "wires". IMHO the reason why = we often see POTS and cable is because these were initially = not-competing and tapping into different pools od end-users willingness = to pay. So even if no ISP is given true monopoly power over the access = link the effects are still similar. Plus even if 3 ISPs would = independently wire-up a unit, that still leaves us deep in oligopoly = territory and we know that market mechanisms will still not work well to = deliver internet access at reasonable cost. > You put a monopoly in place and that will be nearly permanent. = Outside the scope of this debate but I=E2=80=99d rather see individual = subsidies to promote competition vs the government building out a = monopoly. In theory that sounds nice, but we will not see sufficient = competition and choice in the access network to get us out of the = monopoly/oligopoly regime. And there I subjectively favor monopolies in = government hand, as government actually has checks and balances... That said, over here we end up giving subsidies, but at least = encourage ISPs deploying fiber to offer bitstream access to their = competitors. (Over POTS the incumbent is not encouraged but required via = ex-ante regulation to offer bitstream access for controlled whole sake = prices, for FTTH this currently is still only encouraged, but it seems = clear that blantant abuse will result in ex-ante regulation again; let's = see how well this works). > I=E2=80=99ll remind you, I run 3 ISPs. Thanks, that is why the discussion with you is so fruitful and = interesting, you offer a perspective and well-funded arguments that as a = pure end-user I do not see. So, let me take the opportunity to thank = you. > What limits my expansion is generally protections given to a monopoly = by local government. =20 Well, how would you fare in a situation like Amsterdam; so if a = municipality could offer you dark fibers to each dewlling unit = terminating in a a few data centers? So if you had equal access to the = monopoly access network as all other ISPs? > You might ask Jeremy from the previous comment, he has direct view to = 2 of these networks and might attest that we do reasonably well and are = one of the ISPs putting in real effort. We welcome competition because = it gives us an opportunity to be the best. Nothing better to drive = positive reviews for your company than being better than the other guys.=20= +1; alas I do not see that spirit in the local incumbents.... = and here in Germany smaller ISPs are a mixed bag, ranging from = enlightened ones' that do not fear competition to those that try to = build their own quasi-monopoly fiefdoms. > Also, in MOST of America, there is no shortage of money. There is = nothing limiting multiple providers from building in. ROI... if you are the only one wiring-up a place you essentially = have a captive audience that will (within reason) needs to accept your = prices, if you are the second ISP wiring-up a place, you now have to = deal with that other ISPs pricing. As an example the incumbent DOCSIS = ISP in Germany a few years ago pushed down the monthly price for = "gigabit-internet" (~1000/50 Mbps) to ~40EUR/month setting a price-point = that makes is hard for fiber-ISPs to establish prices above. As = end-customer I do not complain, but I understand that this is intended = to a) increase the customer base (docsis ISPs still are well below the = DSL ISPs even if jut looking inside the cable fooot-print) b) to make it = harder for those FTTH competition to quickly recoup their costs (this = one is speculative, as nobody would openly admit that ;) ). > You can find places this isn=E2=80=99t true but 90%+ is it. I run my = businesses covering mostly rural areas in a red state that is on the = lower end of incomes and I=E2=80=99ve done this out of pocket, operating = in the black, and upgrading and expanding constantly. I have 3 other = wisps, spectrum, TDS, Century Link in the area. None of us are hurting = for money to expand services. Also, I=E2=80=99m beating the competition = to the door vs their government money. =20 +1; good for your customers! Less so for customers only served = by the incumbents, no? Regards Sebastian > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink