From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sender4-zs8.zoho.com (sender4-zs8.zoho.com [136.143.188.8]) (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 18AD73B29D for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 19:14:06 -0400 (EDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1696720443; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=a/Mbp8VfkU5M1rc1UJjizgs5cZngk3rHYPdWdo3kb4t8Uv5mwoSYf5ExV9tFodnr3dxz1tRrVF20N5nuqz/qkrK0/H9vwkcaLvOJeLdfj3SCd6DKiEslBGq4SaVOq76EDqMLYW1xPGbVMQERqDyJ1ZKldxnTHUZQrdyOTUT0MVA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1696720443; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=XY3cE7AQHHEOjFsNGdU5uw0YKp1lnT0O3Uf8P0G9ilI=; b=iMIqPu6mLTTdP8tsAJufm+1GPkWHQYT05TmxodnlOvBKVIew0iEeTMc/CjBqqf/C7vAUZgoLk2YSiPAquRw/qGuZjSYs+IcossNhMZQc8UOdq0P2Oubldl6lHaoTPHHf/c0Vne7A1t1I8jkuO6/oJBKRjA2ItyOsQIIVBBaljSk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=phillywisper.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mjs@phillywisper.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1696720443; s=mail; d=phillywisper.net; i=mjs@phillywisper.net; h=Date:Date:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=XY3cE7AQHHEOjFsNGdU5uw0YKp1lnT0O3Uf8P0G9ilI=; b=lHKWVxa2DNVXRChbnBDgmzuCoA+q7iCboAalIDI0yiHGu6tJLgZWOdhnzOiz5NUE Tw9DfjUJCbkYUtsuLQkY4EK6ia/DuQLg1QThYMUCpvZx9Fx1Y1KXTXEBY74ZDvUUlUN SRwVp884q8xXk3SNREKcM/DYANbqhftraa8VM+S4= Received: from mail.zoho.com by mx.zohomail.com with SMTP id 169672044205074.49887920175945; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 16:14:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 19:14:02 -0400 From: Mark Steckel To: "rjmcmahon" Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=22Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make?= =?UTF-8?Q?_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!=22?= Message-ID: <18b0c6b52a6.d110bb9c970185.5954777264962248076@phillywisper.net> In-Reply-To: References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Medium User-Agent: Zoho Mail X-Mailer: Zoho Mail 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: Sat, 07 Oct 2023 23:14:07 -0000 Sorry they abandoned your local loop. Timing is everything when discussing the RBOCs, CLECS, DSL ISPs and the aba= ndonment of the copper plant. The CLEC DSL ISPs started disappearing after the CLEC equal access rules wh= ere changed in 2004/2005. The RBOCs started abandoning their copper plant i= n earnest in the mid 2010s. I would argue that the RBOCs decided to abandon their copper plant because = of the high cost to upgrade it, especially given the under investment in ma= intenance, and not because of Title II regulations. Investment spending on = CapEx, especially for maintenance, hurts the stock price. Not spending CapE= x and taking a asset tax write-off raises the stock price. Eating your seed= cord might be good for the quarterly stock price, but is bad in the long t= erm. But the exec and Wall Street operate based on IBGYBG (I'll be gone. Yo= u'll be gone.) ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:13:07 -0400 rjmcmahon wrote ---=20 > Everybody abandoned my local loop. Twisted pair from multiple decades=20 > ago into antiquated, windowless COs with punch blocks, with no space nor= =20 > latency advantage for colocated content & compute, seems to have killed= =20 > it off. I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper=20 > with just a promise of maintenance. The whole CLEC open the loop to=20 > competitive access seems to have failed per costs, antiquated=20 > technology, limited colocation, an outdated waveguide (otherwise things= =20 > like CDDI would have won over Cat 5), and market reasons. The early ISPs= =20 > didn't collocate, they bought T1s and E1s and connected the TDM to=20 > statistical multiplexing - no major investment there either. >=20 > The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to contract carriage and=20 > wireless largely because of the burdens of title II per regulators not= =20 > being able to create an investment into the OSPs. The 2000 blow up was= =20 > kinda real. >=20 > She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in the=20 > right place. That's like trying to share a flashlight. She has access to= =20 > the FCC technology group full of capable engineers. They should have=20 > told her to install some structured wire, place more APs, set the=20 > carrier and turn down the power. My wife works in the garden now using= =20 > the garden AP SSID with no issues. My daughter got her own carrier too= =20 > per here Dad dedicating a front end module for her distance learning=20 > needs. I think her story to justify title II regulation is a bit made=20 > up. >=20 > Also, communications have been essential back before the rural free=20 > delivery of mail in 1896. Nothing new here other than hyperbole to=20 > justify a 5 member commission acting as the single federal regulator=20 > over 140M households and 33M businesses, almost none of which have any= =20 > idea about the complexities of the internet. I'm not buying it and don't= =20 > want to hand the keys to the FCC who couldn't protect journalism nor=20 > privacy. Maybe start there, looking at what they didn't do versus=20 > blaming contract carriage for a distraction? >=20 > https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:te= xt=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20sta= tes. >=20 > Bob > > My understanding, though I am not 100% certain, is that the baby bells > > lobbied to have the CLEC equal access provisions revoked/gutted. > > Before this, the telephone companies were required to provide access > > to the "last mile" of the copper lines and the switches at wholesale > > costs. Once the equal access provisions were removed, the telephone > > companies started charging the small phone and DSL providers close to > > the retail price for access. The CLEC DSL providers could not stay in > > business when they charged a customer $35 / month for Internet service > > while the telephone company charged the DSL ISP $35 / month for > > access. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote= =20 > > --- > > > I have a lot to unpack from this: > > > > > > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf > > > > > > 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 th= e > > > 3rd party DSL providers from the field. I had found something > > > referencing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but I= =20 > > do > > > clearly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in the=20 > > early > > > 00s, and how few you can buy from now. Obviously there are many=20 > > other > > > possible root causes. > > > > > > DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it definately suffers= =20 > > from > > > many reports of degraded copper quality, but does an estimate exist > > > for how much working DSL is left? > > > > > > Q0) How much DSL is in the EU? > > > Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA? > > > Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?) > > > > > > Did competition in DSL vanish because of or not of an FCC related= =20 > > order? > > > > > > -- > > > Oct 30:=20 > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nnagain mailing list > > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20