From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (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 601253CB37 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2023 15:39:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696793984; x=1697398784; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=F72JCTXwbAhmX0Cp3l5qkmlmEJ/XGdsQ/mM5nllJ6/o=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Zil7Wp9oLJ0yWfXuPQqsHy8l4VRZHDrdKIpxkSypnWn6wr9nmASnnuJqOETjY4AvYnMC1p3QIfu GH6jaQe3ywxhOXpj5UUDiOgJyRJRBL4xCvQnWEg+Mb0rD7L88Enc9DQcS9pmHkFlk969qdDCgpIr3 M9tjaNtkrmrvNHtQVSUpfEaD3k36H/eMPpRFyVLlgejVIWxTZ7pOc6nSM81yQNc0E5YFhBjxT2VJw sHLEPKIQgzORLrOpqMiILlJ7eHSq+J/aJBnSA7psRip5vxcf1+TFtogNodB81odCEkj0mwtC9Ug3r lXzIeS/eGi3c+gzWg0iIHd6lt66IXrprAI0A== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1M4JqV-1qpIVl25b7-000LkD; Sun, 08 Oct 2023 21:39:44 +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: <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2023 21:39:43 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C4=ABs_mak_e_the_technical_a?= =?utf-8?Q?spects_heard_this_time!?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <886C6C10-7C9A-4D2F-B9D7-5C018CC4852C@gmx.de> References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> To: Robert McMahon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:qeBko7/5v8cZohTYLpWkhov3WAnzjNXM+udjYEJlaYF/M2I5cEh FGGAuRJO3uwVj0UdzN7+iszCWQj/28FxWmhR5fpb9DI020fUuhV+drmXNG/JBXOq0eKdH8r uMMqOmBtkB7zUc5KgO84KHpvFGzJqhxG9rJfgYgdzYlwV3aHMaaTQV+oxU2ZrKxLmOrnS8D 79HoUhUnVsuSmzse4oVDQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:5VEg0bnUqac=;AbMwLF51pR3mclwOtRg5vHjz5Fw jXAZ2hKEsFE6NHekjR6obhtyQWXmvg9+MIHp1jsGOTU2RYXlbIRPTZio5qVXEKScHr3QNK/Gd gm/YAvHm9nWq71afuOn6UpM0+AZPIRDjAIhdc0A+eWRQJRBJehDUSQHlQ0RfSnrlXvOvRq7bv 1iLMWLK33TKGBoumfHeLONWmXbchZjw4UdqvY7OOqEW8s0KiROPPLkOJCDeykAihu98zSlipQ 6CknFZn1rJce5+3q0agT2WmzJG00+a3Eq2gEwZtRky+YmHeyV3YHCktQxr+1I0zxyTaas/G4E GSMBzTyAgY2lBSBYKPsotn7KlaB/OHSGaR5cilZrF2l2gFnpu25xfxJ61q0AVWKhaPuQhuXSy 19nEMvaqecJemNLWdwk+ADDKWFFlIA8XeGcVoqi2hvDnAmSflG3oJKv6+V1yiav5x/UVKkb+e rsz3GJ/n78vUN08Ae2JInBXpMWl/DZi4gYS77VaDg8blCiXkcmS4+oocMo7tGP+GYhYe2EoQR TwZfS4/cCnGbISuwZDz4Qli7leEVeAbz+WeJQrNBOg0+EIe5E7FCnDrRi22KRwm/N3VgPqvJE IPahmAs3yRWAzcLeAruVJ4kvUCIUaM3iyt1AoNRjm+8uBzZ/lVhRFqO0k0a8eQ4tU2rNn3byF teVay/a01y6LjbWdwWPlnIByEYBz/a1HEWlzlHAal01QgxinoX4fReBIy41zc/f+G+PWUrpeY mXBsykCzctXLwIxMRNJAZ1kGNg3CVDZdIp36eTuEwKJWK5Ev+T9I57NqFmV+pvvgoCARPo6uj e5vfY2/yuiavHr95ZN6CiKCrvjzUkIuj/yZV4M7rTxggZkrfj6DiVJP8DV8shQJO6/uTVbA8J 6ngofs4dYGelz3sC0Yr1i/xUle+5UDW8ofXyFhvQDQKmIvrJ6q0e+afhPYAACWh/R1D/+IMFp 01P79/JhcUforIcW39p8/D0kzn0= 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 19:39:49 -0000 Hi Bob, thanks for the interesting discussion, I am learning a lot! I am unsure = whether the following is too direct > On Oct 8, 2023, at 18:37, Robert McMahon = wrote: >=20 > Hi Sebastian, >=20 > The U.S. of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates = investment into essential comm infrastructure. It seems to go the other = way, regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the commons. [SM] My personal take on "tragedy of the commons" is that this = is an unfortunate framing that tries to muddy the waters. What "tragedy = of the commons" boils down to in insufficient or insufficiently enforced = regulation. The tragic part is that we theoretically already know how to = avoid that... >=20 > The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to = contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been removed. [SM] Clearly sub-optimal regulation at play here that leaves = obvious lucrative alternate pathways outside of the regulated = component... the solution clearly would have been to put wireless under = regulation as well (either immediately or as a pre-declared response to = insufficient fiwed wire access plant maintenance and built-out). Then = again easy to say now... > The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract carriage. [SM] At least in Germany without good justification, once an = access network is large enough to stymie growth of competitors by sheer = size it needs to be put under regulations (assuming we actually desire = competition in the internet access market*). Letting such players escape = regulation is doubly problematic: a) it results in anti-competitive market consolidation in the hands of = those players. b) it puts the other (incumbent) players subject to regulatory action at = a clear disadvantage. *) IMHO we will never get meaningful infrastructure competition in the = access network though, too few players to land us anyway outside of = monopoly/oligopoly regime... > And they are upgrading today. >=20 > The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too and = have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly.=20 [SM] Yes and no, few ISPs if any are willing to try to strong = arm Google/Facebook/Apple/... but smaller players do fall pray to = sufficiently large ISPs playing games to sell access to their eye-balls = (see e.g. the carefully and competently managed under-peering Deutsche = Telekom (DT) does with the other T1-ISPs to "encourage" all content = providers to also buy direct access t the Deutsche Telekom, technically = billed as "transit", but far above alternative transit that few content = providers will use this nominal transit to reach anything but Telekom = eye-balls, but I digress. However DT did not invent that technique but = learned from AT&T and Verizon*). *) Only a few ISPs can really pull this off, as you need to be = essentially transit-free yourself, otherwise your own Transit provider = will allow others to reach you over typically not congested links. But = as SwissCom and Deutsche Telekom demonstrated in the past, if you then = collude with your Transit provider you might still be able to play such = games. Side-note in Germany DT is forced by law to allow resellers on = its copper plant so end-customers unhappy with DT's peering policy can = actually change ISP and some do, but not enough to hinder DT from trying = this approach. In addition DT together with other European ex-monopoly telecoms lobbies = the EU commission hard to force big tech to pay for access network build = out in Germany... Now, I do have sympathies for appropriately taxing big = tech in those countries they generate revenue, but not to line the = coffers of telecoms for a service they were already paid for by their = end-customers. >=20 > The undeserved areas do need support. [SM] I fully agree! We should give all regions and access links = the same equitable starting point to participate in the digital society. > The BEAD monies may help. I think these areas shouldn't be relegated = to DSL. [SM] My take here is that FTTH is inevitable as the next step = sooner or later. But for today's needs DSL would do just fine... except = for rural areas moving outdoor DSLAMs close enough to the customers to = allow acceptable access capacity is likely almost as expensive (if not = more expensive due to the active DSLAM tech) as not stopping with the = fiber at the potential outdoor DSLAM location, but putting it all the = way to the end-customers. However dark fibers in the ground are only half the problem, we still = should allow for meaningful competition over these fibers in offering = internet access services, as one thig we know about the free market is, = it works better the more different players we have on the supply and = demand side. (For internet access the demand side is not the problem, = but the supply side is where we need to take steps to get over what = Rosenworcel described as only 20% of US households have actual choice of = broadband ISPs). Regards Sebastian P.S.: I am sure that in essence we pretty much agree, we differ a bit in = how we want to reach the goal, but that allows for a healthy discussion. >=20 > Bob > On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > Hi Bob, >=20 > On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain = wrote: > Everybody abandoned my local loop. Twisted pair from multiple decades = ago into antiquated, windowless COs with punch blocks, with no space nor = latency advantage for colocated content & compute, seems to have killed = it off.=20 >=20 > [SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inversely proportional to loop = length, so providing 'acceptable' capacity requires sufficiently short = wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving DSLAMs closer = to the end users... which in a densely populated area works well, but in = a less densely populated area becomes costly fast. And doing so will = only make sense if you get enough customers on such an 'outdoor DSLAM' = so might work for the first to built out, but becomes prohibitively = unattractive for other ISP later. However terminating the loops in the = field clears up lots of spaces in the COs... not that anybody over here = moved much compute into these... (there exist too many COs to make that = an attractive proposition in spite of all the hype about moving compute = to the edge). As is a few well connected data centers for compute seem = to work well enough... >=20 > I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with = just a promise of maintenance.=20 >=20 > [SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to me, maintenance of the = copper plant inherited from Bell should never have been left to the ISPs = to decide about...=20 >=20 >=20 > The whole CLEC open the loop to competitive access seems to have = failed per costs, antiquated technology, limited colocation, an outdated = waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI would have won over Cat 5), and = market reasons. The early ISPs didn't collocate, they bought T1s and E1s = and connected the TDM to statistical multiplexing - no major investment = there either. >=20 > The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to contract carriage and = wireless largely because of the burdens of title II per regulators not = being able to create an investment into the OSPs. The 2000 blow up was = kinda real. >=20 > [SM] Again, I see no fault in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs of the = hook on maintaining their copper plant or replace it with FTTH... >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in the = right place. That's like trying to share a flashlight. She has access to = the FCC technology group full of capable engineers. They should have = told her to install some structured wire, place more APs, set the = carrier and turn down the power.=20 >=20 > [SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with the = audience over a shared experience and less as a problem report ;) >=20 >=20 > My wife works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no = issues. My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating a = front end module for her distance learning needs. I think her story to = justify title II regulation is a bit made up. >=20 > [SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I = agree, I see no good argument for keeping essential infrastructure like = internet access in private hands without appropriate oversight. = Especially given the numbers for braodband choice for customers, clearly = the market is not going to solve the issues at hand. >=20 >=20 >=20 > Also, communications have been essential back before the rural free = delivery of mail in 1896. Nothing new here other than hyperbole to = justify a 5 member commission acting as the single federal regulator = over 140M households and 33M businesses, almost none of which have any = idea about the complexities of the internet. >=20 > [SM] But the access network is quite different than the internet's = core, so not being experts on the core seems acceptable, no? And even 5 = members is clearly superior to no oversight at all? >=20 > I'm not buying it and don't want to hand the keys to the FCC who = couldn't protect journalism nor privacy. Maybe start there, looking at = what they didn't do versus blaming contract carriage for a distraction? >=20 > [SM] I can speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO = the national regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between the = interests of both sides. >=20 >=20 >=20 > = https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text= =3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20stat= es. >=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 --- > I have a lot to unpack from this: >=20 > https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf >=20 > 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. >=20 > DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it definately suffers = from > many reports of degraded copper quality, but does an estimate exist > for how much working DSL is left? >=20 > Q0) How much DSL is in the EU? > Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA? > Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?) >=20 > Did competition in DSL vanish because of or not of an FCC related = order? >=20 > -- > Oct 30: = https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >=20 > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20 >=20 > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >=20 > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain