From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C903CB37 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2023 12:37:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.96] (c-69-181-111-171.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.111.171]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8FC91B258; Sun, 8 Oct 2023 09:37:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com B8FC91B258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1696783039; bh=+0IE3VGvvapDkRF4jbdO5kQ4ntbrHwNIlAZktgMLt98=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=Ya+zfSw6mpDDQkLP/Dh4yPNXlSfRWgex3Udiqw7IcFrZr9FrQKxpztaZRGJuq5GmO wQgBbUMNgld4rbHp59Iz5DK/07Gn8mBWGrEfbmXni5sYyrZDxmlCZZQ2BgnuBVlV5c FX9SjR3OHLsn7wR9Ph0PqEMilf/VmJw+SlvoaIWU= In-Reply-To: <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> X-Referenced-Uid: 000113fe567702d5 Thread-Topic: Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL User-Agent: Android X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----JDJ72TH32LABUH0XQPNIWV3KRBOEEO" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Robert McMahon Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2023 09:37:19 -0700 To: Sebastian Moeller CC: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_mak_e?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= Message-ID: <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> 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 16:37:20 -0000 ------JDJ72TH32LABUH0XQPNIWV3KRBOEEO Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Sebastian, The U=2ES=2E of late isn't very good with regulatory that mo= tivates investment into essential comm infrastructure=2E It seems to go the= other way, regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the commons= =2E The RBOCs eventually did overbuild=2E They used wireless and went to c= ontract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been removed=2E Th= e cable cos did HFC and have always been contract carriage=2E And they are = upgrading today=2E The tech companies providing content & services are doi= ng fine too and have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly= =2E The undeserved areas do need support=2E The BEAD monies may help=2E I= think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL=2E Bob On Oct 8, 2023, 2= :38 AM, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >Hi Bob, >= >On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain > wrote: >>Everybody abandoned my local loop=2E Twisted pa= ir from multiple decades >ago into antiquated, windowless COs with punch bl= ocks, with no space >nor latency advantage for colocated content & compute,= seems to have >killed it off=2E > >[SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inv= ersely proportional to loop >length, so providing 'acceptable' capacity re= quires sufficiently short >wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn me= ans moving DSLAMs >closer to the end users=2E=2E=2E which in a densely popu= lated area works >well, but in a less densely populated area becomes costly= fast=2E 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 beco= mes >prohibitively unattractive for other ISP later=2E However terminating = the >loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in the COs=2E=2E=2E not th= at >anybody over here moved much compute into these=2E=2E=2E (there exist t= oo >many COs to make that an attractive proposition in spite of all the >hy= pe about moving compute to the edge)=2E As is a few well connected data >ce= nters for compute seem to work well enough=2E=2E=2E > >I suspect in some to= wns one can buy out the local loop copper with just >a promise of maintenan= ce=2E > >[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=2E=2E=2E > > >The whole CLEC open the loop to competitive= access seems to have failed >per costs, antiquated technology, limited col= ocation, an outdated >waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI would have won = over Cat 5), and >market reasons=2E The early ISPs didn't collocate, they b= ought T1s and >E1s and connected the TDM to statistical multiplexing - no m= ajor >investment there either=2E >> >>The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ we= nt to contract carriage and >wireless largely because of the burdens of tit= le II per regulators not >being able to create an investment into the OSPs= =2E The 2000 blow up was >kinda real=2E > >[SM] Again, I see no fault in ti= tle 2 here, but in letting ISPs of the >hook on maintaining their copper pl= ant or replace it with FTTH=2E=2E=2E > > > >> >>She starts out by complaini= ng about trying to place her WiFi in the >right place=2E That's like trying= to share a flashlight=2E She has access >to the FCC technology group full = of capable engineers=2E They should >have told her to install some structu= red wire, place more APs, set the >carrier and turn down the power=2E > >[= SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with the >audie= nce over a shared experience and less as a problem report ;) > > >My wife = works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no >issues=2E My daug= hter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating a >front end module fo= r her distance learning needs=2E I think her story to >justify title II reg= ulation is a bit made up=2E > >[SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wasn't the = strongest example, I agree, >I see no good argument for keeping essential i= nfrastructure like >internet access in private hands without appropriate ov= ersight=2E >Especially given the numbers for braodband choice for customers= , >clearly the market is not going to solve the issues at hand=2E > > >> >>= Also, communications have been essential back before the rural free >delive= ry of mail in 1896=2E Nothing new here other than hyperbole to >justify a 5= member commission acting as the single federal regulator >over 140M househ= olds and 33M businesses, almost none of which have any >idea about the comp= lexities of the internet=2E > >[SM] But the access network is quite differe= nt than the internet's >core, so not being experts on the core seems accept= able, no? And even 5 >members is clearly superior to no oversight at all? >= >I'm not buying it and don't want to hand the keys to the FCC who >couldn'= t protect journalism nor privacy=2E Maybe start there, looking at >what the= y didn't do versus blaming contract carriage for a distraction? > >[SM] I c= an speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO >the national = regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between >the interests of b= oth sides=2E > > >> >>https://about=2Eusps=2Ecom/who/profile/history/rural-= free-delivery=2Ehtm#:~:text=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20= operating%20in%2029%20states=2E >> >>Bob >>> My understanding, though I am = not 100% certain, is that the baby >bells >>> lobbied to have the CLEC equa= l access provisions revoked/gutted=2E >>> Before this, the telephone compan= ies were required to provide access >>> to the "last mile" of the copper li= nes and the switches at wholesale >>> costs=2E Once the equal access provis= ions were removed, the telephone >>> companies started charging the small p= hone and DSL providers close >to >>> the retail price for access=2E The CLE= C DSL providers could not stay >in >>> business when they charged a custome= r $35 / month for Internet >service >>> while the telephone company charged= the DSL ISP $35 / month for >>> access=2E >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---- On= Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain >wrote --- >>> > = I have a lot to unpack from this: >>> > >>> > https://docs=2Efcc=2Egov/pu= blic/attachments/DOC-397257A1=2Epdf >>> > >>> > the first two on my mind = from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first >open >>> > internet policy" and "Co= mpetitiveness" As best as I recall, (and >>> > please correct me), this l= ed essentially to the departure of all >the >>> > 3rd party DSL providers = from the field=2E I had found something >>> > referencing this interpretat= ion 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=2E Obviously there are many >other >>> > possible root c= auses=2E >>> > >>> > DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it defin= ately suffers >from >>> > many reports of degraded copper quality, but doe= s 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 >order? >>> > >>> > -- >>>= > Oct 30: >https://netdevconf=2Einfo/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-= bof=2Ehtml >>> > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos >>> > _____________________= __________________________ >>> > Nnagain mailing list >>> > Nnagain@lists= =2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>> > https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnag= ain >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Nnagain = mailing list >>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>> https://lists=2Ebuff= erbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>__________________________________________= _____ >>Nnagain mailing list >>Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>https://= lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain > >-- >Sent from my Android dev= ice with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E ------JDJ72TH32LABUH0XQPNIWV3KRBOEEO Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sebastian= ,

The U=2ES=2E of late isn't very good with= regulatory that motivates investment into essential comm infrastructure=2E= It seems to go the other way, regulatory triggers under investment, a trag= edy of the commons=2E

The RBOCs eventually = did overbuild=2E They used wireless and went to contract carriage, and spec= ial access rate regulation has been removed=2E The cable cos did HFC and ha= ve always been contract carriage=2E And they are upgrading today=2E

=
The tech companies providing content & service= s are doing fine too and have enough power to work things out with the ISPs= directly=2E

The undeserved areas do need = support=2E The BEAD monies may help=2E I think these areas shouldn't be rel= egated to DSL=2E

Bob
On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx=2Ede> wrote:<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=2E8ex; bord= er-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> 
Hi Bob,

On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain =
<nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet> wrote:
Everybody abandoned my local loop=2E Twisted pair=
 from multiple decades ago into antiquated, windowless COs with punch block=
s, with no space nor latency advantage for colocated content & compute,=
 seems to have killed it off=2E 

[SM] Indeed, throughpu=
t for DSL is inversely proportional to loop length, so providing  'acceptab=
le' capacity requires sufficiently short wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and t=
hat in turn means moving DSLAMs closer to the end users=2E=2E=2E which in a=
 densely populated area works well, but in a less densely populated area be=
comes costly fast=2E And doing so will only make sense if you get enough cu=
stomers on such an 'outdoor DSLAM' so might work for the first to built out=
, but becomes prohibitively unattractive for other ISP later=2E However ter=
minating the loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in the COs=2E=2E=
=2E not that anybody over here moved much compute into these=2E=2E=2E (ther=
e exist too many COs to make that an attractive proposition in spite of all=
 the hype about moving compute to the edge)=2E As is a few well connected d=
ata centers for compute seem to work well enough=2E=2E=2E

I suspect =
in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with just a promise of =
maintenance=2E 

[SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to me, maint=
enance of the copper plant inherited from Bell should never have been left =
to the ISPs to decide about=2E=2E=2E 


The whole CLEC open the lo=
op to competitive access seems to have failed per costs, antiquated technol=
ogy, limited colocation, an outdated waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI =
would have won over Cat 5), and market reasons=2E The early ISPs didn't col=
locate, they bought T1s and E1s and connected the TDM to statistical multip=
lexing - no major investment there either=2E

The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went t=
o contract carriage and wireless largely because of the burdens of title II=
 per regulators not being able to create an investment into the OSPs=2E The=
 2000 blow up was kinda real=2E

[SM] Again, I see no fa=
ult in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs of the hook on maintaining their c=
opper plant or replace it with FTTH=2E=2E=2E




She starts out by complaining about t=
rying to place her WiFi in the right place=2E That's like trying to share a=
 flashlight=2E She has access to the FCC technology group full of capable e=
ngineers=2E  They should have told her to install some structured wire, pla=
ce more APs, set the carrier and turn down the power=2E 
[SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with the aud=
ience over a shared experience  and less as a problem report ;)


=
My wife works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no issues=2E =
My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating a front end mod=
ule for her distance learning needs=2E I think her story to justify title I=
I regulation is a bit made up=2E

[SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wa=
sn't the strongest example, I agree, I see no good argument for keeping ess=
ential infrastructure like internet access in private hands without appropr=
iate oversight=2E Especially given the numbers for braodband choice for cus=
tomers, clearly the market is not going to solve the issues at hand=2E
<=
br>

Also, communica=
tions have been essential back before the rural free delivery of mail in 18=
96=2E Nothing new here other than hyperbole to justify a 5 member commissio=
n acting as the single federal regulator over 140M households and 33M busin=
esses, almost none of which have any idea about the complexities of the int=
ernet=2E

[SM] But the access network is quite different=
 than the internet's core, so not being experts on the core seems acceptabl=
e, no? And even 5 members is clearly superior to no oversight at all?
 I'm not buying it and don't want to hand the keys to the FCC who couldn'=
t protect journalism nor privacy=2E Maybe start there, looking at what they=
 didn't do versus blaming contract carriage for a distraction?

[SM] =
I can speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO the nationa=
l regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between the interests of =
both sides=2E


<=
br>https://about=2Eusps=2Ecom/who/profile/history/rural-=
free-delivery=2Ehtm#:~:text=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20=
operating%20in%2029%20states=2E

Bob
 My understanding, though I am not 100% certain, is=
 that the baby bells
 lobbied to have the CLEC equal access provisions r=
evoked/gutted=2E
 Before this, the telephone companies were required to =
provide access
 to the "last mile" of the copper lines and the switches =
at wholesale
 costs=2E Once the equal access provisions were removed, th=
e telephone
 companies started charging the small phone and DSL provider=
s close to
 the retail price for access=2E The CLEC DSL providers could =
not stay in
 business when they charged a customer $35 / month for Inter=
net service
 while the telephone company charged the DSL ISP $35 / month=
 for
 access=2E
 
 
 
 
  ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:=
10 -0400  Dave Taht via Nnagain  wrote ---
 I have a lot to unpack from this:

 https://docs=
=2Efcc=2Egov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1=2Epdf

 the first tw=
o 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 provider=
s from the field=2E I had found something
 referencing this interpretati=
on 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=2E Obviously there are many other
 possible root causes=2E
<=
br> DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it definately suffers from<=
br> 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 relate=
d order?

 --
 Oct 30: https://netdevconf=2Einfo/0x17/ne=
ws/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof=2Ehtml
 Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQo=
s

 Nnagain mailing list
 Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet https://li=
sts=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain


 Nnaga=
in mailing list
 Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet
 https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=
=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain

Nnagain mailing listNnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet
https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagai=
n
------JDJ72TH32LABUH0XQPNIWV3KRBOEEO--