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 C656D3B29D for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2023 03:14:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696749279; x=1697354079; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=JF/HGz1KvQJ59DuWZBfzxmWlgXxOEMYDPj9GOCKsgv8=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=WCZxWnilVAG5nQ8VqqOXju15Szmqr0AhV02T4heBFAyrBtW6C5skv4DW57K89+Qw7MgbJkxjhfy 1192F2SE2epUrHOyTGlKfKFE46/ox4OckVoKajwigrTsuufyejKpI6vycd6hnxmGpWILElXmgIOaq Pw3Y/WUr+0fCIlbTk1V0j88Zskx5wUc/Z2khGVjSVZ7le5O5oKyJcdFZ2rAl+NNRcB/qrwT9ePz/O bUVr2BIek+TqawMQb+QLaYJOGTxXVJ3jXDF/S8IamgUnrYopt8yOpkIGbXETYgKq08lZHlxZhotVG ptdasEe1pjmWZ64alnz+DViza+3PbhNeB6Pg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.6.162.103]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MJmKX-1r9Osw2rEX-00K74R; Sun, 08 Oct 2023 09:14:39 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2023 09:14:38 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1500A645-643B-477B-97BE-B74716F7E5A0@gmx.de> References: To: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:GnPbdhJj6ZS/2nLOQQJwPEkcnO+E0oYnXXqppy8aw7zoKgnb57o virFnI3o/jLXtm/VQhOj9U9JfQmBOU+5RLjhrmYUEcFL4FEj+0ivN/H4Cv6FXr52y6r6MCF FOaU3D54en9uKr7r0mBwjA6vgoiwSnBlSdYm04cb2TjIoyDx+jIII4c3TOWJ247HLFR2Wm0 1MatFf99ZT/aa5NqJZUIw== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:mZleqyXWQXI=;J5+Mm5TqAmOdlY9ZrsllWQwHsCi AU81CXKH6t5R/4ilgBg0hcN20QftoXl8uE1idRlWf7nS2Yqm0f/zaiuNUVNyrjSRlpi5tYXgB T/2SXicQbagzaYXvDrldsW3d5IGI4ppWewbrFM8Aa2JdQMLctY5FQGcwp6D0WN86US+MGOu9R UfY5FPwVBPpMd2ynidih1WLnoE+/mhts8PfCVfOje6MTnOD5Y/XHFrisMlh4+O8kzrLrDGBNv xfGcqunFmcEgYPK72nAU3Hy8VOrb0wKRmBKZ2tHREB0C1rhmaLIAF+GGPW5IxWtYUuKw7j5lJ Sy6z1KNLHwum4imPL0s8B2fDRj9RjbVw4IGRAeZYzPFlAf57T6Mhpf0G2TSzcVBLYLHVUwQF1 nGoQaMALZdAf9KSKBolcuM2rZBmHXBeVZVMDKjfWf/6/itkiQ2WQvmg36obvWl+qovJNF4wLU AWcEnCFuUasDDZVfXDG1Zz42+ue8UwF9sl0UEbRAXGGcKY2omAS8IXzMa5SHS7sQkwtAz0AsE 4x4zn1CZoHcqYWWM2Qf5Y7DEZvm/QvGaZGYRVJAfPott1DQH3dMlmhRYAUEI2kMgR/NNtKGIO IYxg/sUGA8gZIsB5Ul/LSVtrpXsk7XiO5hreLuGQYFkH2Z276AzSInemMqo2qEHhchKGqqpVg ClTynB7iuuhp2zmc+sBQTHR0rV9mvJfQtv3tmd2SlVWkTVo/xVVTwMIuV6BiG9O/upIdSX9Cq lAxGDQJMA3QF2tFL9HWnkLFfghUQgoEwV3chwgYDU5o7T9XS7NE2TNh0JRP/oeF4NHc0sJxH4 Kgf8aJXHE0/l16VK87WNg8MnMFQAuJGEKR/0BKIzKWLZzH0lsCtYgrTXgK1edn/2mapdj8Nuh A7/fDVpey5aHqDcuv2xJJ4Co+LIBeFpDC4yD3XwTjpffFRM1pq6/cvzJab5TUyAnakhz4Jbf0 8ZSIfA== Subject: Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2023 07:14:42 -0000 Hi Dave, > On Oct 7, 2023, at 23:22, Dave Taht via Nnagain = wrote: >=20 > I have a lot to unpack from this: >=20 > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf Thanks for the link, I think this contains solid arguments for the FCC's = current position. I for one am convinced that internet access is a game = served well by having referees with "teeth". > the first two on my mind from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first open > internet policy" and "Competitiveness" As best as I recall, (and > please correct me), this led essentially to the departure of all the > 3rd party DSL providers from the field. I had found something > referencing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but I do > clearly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in the early > 00s, and how few you can buy from now. Obviously there are many other > possible root causes. Since in other markets, introduction of NN/open internet regulations did = not kill local loop unbundling this is IMHO not a strict consequence of = sch regulations, but might be related to the exact process and scope of = those regulations. >=20 > DSL continued to get better and evolve, No shit, with sufficient short links G.fast offers capacity in the = gigabit range, and up to 500m VDSL2 can deliver 100/40 Mbps... > but it definately suffers from > many reports of degraded copper quality, For sure, once the cables are bad interference increases and achievable = capacity drops quickly, and stability takes a hit. > but does an estimate exist > for how much working DSL is left? >=20 > Q0) How much DSL is in the EU? This differs wildly by country, but here are some numbers for 2021 = (which hence will likely over estimate the number of DSL links = somewhat): = https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/303187/umfrage/anteil-der-d= sl-anschluesse-an-allen-breitbandanschluessen-in-laendern-der-eu/ > Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA? As option or as actually booked contract? > Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?) I have no authoritative answer to Q1-3, but I can answer a Q4 (Amount of = active access links per technology in Germany in 2022) you did not ask see = https://www.brekoverband.de/site/assets/files/37980/breko_marktanalyse_202= 3-1.pdf slide 11: FTTH/B: 3,400,000 : mostly PtMP GPON, a bit PtP AON ethernet, and = some VDSL2 and G.fast (for in house distribution for some FTTB links) HFC: 8,700,000 : mix of DOCSIS 3.0 and DOCSIS 3.1, speeds up to = 1000/50 VDSL: 19,500,000 : ITU G.993.5, VDSL2 with Vectoring and ITU = G.998.4 G.INP, profile 17a (up to 100/40 Mbps) or 35b (up to 250/40 = Mbps) ADSL: 5,200,000 : ITU G.992.5, stuck on ATM/AAL5, gross speeds = up to 24/3.5, marketed speeds up to 16/3.5 Mbps So for 2022 100 * (19.5+5.2)/(3.4+8.7+19.5+5.2) =3D 67.12% DSL (of = around 37 million access links). Germany is straggling behind in the FTTH roll-out compared to most other = EU countries (see = https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/2023-full-fibre-country-rank= ing-sees-uk-coverage-accelerate-vs-eu39.html), but except for the 5.2 = million links still on ADSL most users have access to adequate access = rates to participate in the digital society (~78% of access links have = booked rates >=3D 30 Mbps, see breko_marktanalyse_2023). I would guess that Germany is only partially representative for Europe = as a whole, as I see a clear interaction between the incumbent's tech = replacement cycle and the state of FTTH deployment. IMHO Deutsche = Telekom started its last modernization a bit too early to jump on the = FTTH train and hence opted for upgrading ADSL/non vectoring VDSL2 to = vectoring VDSL2 to allow speeds of 100 Mbps to counter the DOCSIS thread = (sure DOCSIS was always faster so the goal was IMHO not to fall behind = too much). I also note that the incumbent in Germany is forced by regulation to = virtual local loop unbundling, which now a days in practice typically = means competitors buy bit stream access (BSA)#, both the BSA and the = incumbent's DSL prices are ex-ante regulated, that is they need = regulatory acceptance before coming into effect. The regulator aims at = setting these prices such that the wholesale prices reflects the = estimated cost of building/maintaining the copper infrastructure and the = incumbent's prices leave room for competitors to undercut the = incumbent's prices while still making a surplus. (The ex monopolist = incumbent still is the single largest ISP, neither the fact that the = resellers are generally cheaper, nor the fact that DOCSIS is generally = both cheaper and faster managed to change that*). I personally think = that this regulation works pretty well, my only beef with it is that the = regulatory agency seems unwilling to accept that the largest DOCSIS ISP = (Vodafone) is also too large and should be submitted to a similar = regulatory regime, but I digress. All that said, Germany is on track to replacing the copper access = network with FTTH in the next decade (it has proven to be one of these = moving goals always a few years out in the future ;)). Regards Sebastian #) VDSL2 vectoring requires on vectoring unit to be in control of all = links in a wire bundle, so does not really work with strict local loop = unbundling (at least not when DSLAMs are moved out into the field closer = to the end-customers as was done in Germany and the competitors want to = offer competitive capacities); physical unbundling would require that an = competitor would need to move its own active DSLAMs into each outdoor = location of the incumbent (instead of before just in the CO); this is = why the introduction of vectoring resulted in a re-centralization of DSL = link ownership back to the incumbent (as they were willing and able to = convert most DSLAMs to vectoring) hence the switch to bitstream access = by the competitors. This worked OK even tough the competitors now lack = the capability to differentiate themselves from the incumbent by using = different technology. *) My interpretation is that many customers do not care all to much as = long as internet access simply works (fast enough, compared to what they = know and expect) robustly and reliably. >=20 > Did competition in DSL vanish because of or not of an FCC related = order? >=20 > --=20 > Oct 30: = https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain