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 60C963CB37 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2023 16:19:06 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696796341; x=1697401141; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=AGWUK0GsVy1AuJlJ2jaG3wtW4E4jSFEsJ0IyzI/xqe4=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=qZ6PZ9u7MKz20qWZ04AoGp49pHjd2quTA4pLbmbTV4sRT87zebRPSE8KAM0/HWqUTlGQzjd0adf v6c2FPx6NdINp9jhtDassiByuVVzsCw7WcN13vIh8NmB4RXFqP1i8odsUkV2pKDXwtAvxpxrnJpK7 8/p9v9Qmp77WxpYQohaUq6/XfUi0JsGio8jQ8/7wkE5djsuHJycIxI16oorjaNsbYmkCJANHhcs+6 8DTugJJpTu9vw8ev+DQlTefyLLnxVM+JrW6u9z3u6Z8GJRBv8RC90PlPPutHmproeJoN+85iKrtsP S5LD/ZvtWrn2kdK/ugE19ewIEjf1GrjvljBg== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([95.116.255.84]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N5G9t-1rYdu42mPd-011FAL; Sun, 08 Oct 2023 22:19:01 +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: <88139a6c8a4220851d25a9cfa1185159@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2023 22:19:00 +0200 Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_as?= =?utf-8?Q?pects_heard_this_time!?= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> <88139a6c8a4220851d25a9cfa1185159@rjmcmahon.com> To: rjmcmahon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:wAkn/lGUI70tPJSldxxutucAuwWot7hLa7zlKbo/0AjcXg2v3SP 4/pO1JM2XsDKkaX3URKTe2rrsNaWx5WXhaSFK/2uF09pXCqSFsp97ZI38UqbqibEiwcA1xx JcGkSxFAA9Qyhic2rNgEyPWaOgxl5rP8nf+vNmQ5+o5TkJiJdRLOiy8Mffs1UWuTLF/oV7+ 327DKy/C7HbzsblN0XWiA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:ApKaeXEZGrU=;mzwPzDcp4hIlYYc758EINxdAQku QRXOXQHFOLsVGGG8oSAi3Qu2RBG2ZxK2OX+Nuvopod3VWaPJgOhIUQ/0J35ef3apjhSKPOo2S oPVk4pP/auYuCPLFhc5h6H23iumBzandomk7EeD73FlY2P6oJQkUffMoXcdheu23OxJp7TUo2 XpgPnbh8gjftbYG2pH1diz8QCf+hnQZD+DO8HTeUuv8w0LCFBdYzMxvXUkUoOLnqpqPjh/+p4 otGgP9sp8uk2sFEu9q0R6HyHhvmmupmck5CH6B0ZtDyn7XuIZ4v7Pk8RrLeG/hmU35KS6us9R zA0kTJnXFRmRfyvUnRtvEpnsOFBZq3Z05IgA1X/wIt085VB8hVlor5DtWq/TZFMYqaEPqPr5Z KqKye4FCNWwM7kaf2BZIZTFiPSoTdqmkK6N0JYQ/SxU6y6sdEWDZDk8KZgF7bkhjNwJLRwchz BJN7/837K4HeRaF5d5hsWL3/6+w2RtnwEfBYu4gjHr3DU47cJUBXPVEWhN0UYR5I9kof6M+oO vX2fcHm8uwND+6Q8sfGt0PYFoRudiOwbuj3qYps9SxkMy7Awr2owLe7+Ui/zQPpeD2kx1rE4g 11b1SvtX+JRUVFzQNHSMX9VMmZUFEchKnk9YWLFyvmUUiCRd1t0Tez/hKLVCzLxCcZg9nfSpo uEqGIIqwyDkDYeMz1zMDI/7lfoecCVmcbwl7TvNJp5WYRY4QwmcTs6DaCpZY+J0oo2KAHgusp D1Yumol89+TG5dBbjtpyTisbFh3SeRMqx7q97sTTF6jLmqdV/Q6wxMIQikk/ao3c3wOAbriYg Yj/T4Xo1rxOzKpgFv4PNMTI3oEi58bxeLd+pE3cTk93XAlkDbr5ytij0AWYzhrCf3JRywr732 IbFq1xfuygu4PUFcREpKE94/h8boXOw632YJNwOV/V4mmmUQrog8oUU+uxkhpXqcn1HwKGFvq sEfXtmrDs8JOxpd5TGX98R3+TEI= 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 20:19:06 -0000 Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon wrote: >=20 > Hi Sebastian, >=20 > Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U.S. muni network = started around 1994. It looks like a one and done type investment. Their = offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now seems to have fallen = behind for the last few decades. >=20 > https://www.glasgowepb.com/internet-packages/ > https://communitynets.org/content/birth-community-broadband-video [SM] Looks like they are using DOCSIS and are just about to go = fiber; not totally unexpected, it takes awhile to amortize the cost of = say a CMTS to go DOCSIS and only after that period you make some profit, = so many ISPs will be tempted to operate the active gear a bit longer = longer after break even, as with new active gear revenue will likely not = generate surplus. The challenge is to decide when to upgrade... My preferred model however is not necessarily having a communal ISP that = sells internet access services (I am not against that), but have a = communal built-out of the access network and centralize the lines = (preferably fiber) in a few large enough local IXs, so internet access = providers only need to bring their head-ends and upstream links to those = locations to be able to offer services. In the beginning it makes = probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/XGSPON bit stream access = to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expect to serve only a small = portion of customers in such an IX, but that is pure speculation.... The = real idea is to keep those things that will result in a natural monopoly = to form in communal hands (that already manage other such monopoly = infrastructure anyway) and then try to use the fact that there is no = local 800lb Gorilla ISP owning most lines to try to create a larger pool = of competing ISPs to light up the fiber infrastructure... That is I am = fine with a market solution, if we can assure the market to be big = enough to actually deliver on its promises. > LUS is similar if this article is to be believed. = https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/ [SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard... as the = offers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e.g. LUS = offers symmetric capacity for down- and upload) and the number compared = seems to be the advertised price, which IIRC in the US is considerably = smaller than what one happens to actually pay month per month due to = additional fees and stuff... (in Germany prices for end-customers = typically are "all inclusive prices", the amount of VAT/tax is shown = singled out in the receipts, but the number we operate on is typically = the final price, but then we have almost no local taxes that could = apply). > The LUS NN site says there is no congestion on their fiber (GPON) so = they don't need AQM or other congestion mgmt mechanisms which I find = suspect. https://www.lusfiber.com/net-neutrality [SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would try = them out, then I could report on the details here :)=20 Browsing their documentation I am not a big fan of their volume limits = though, I consider these to be absurd measures of control....(absurd in = that they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for the = actual cost). > This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving too = quickly for municipal approaches. [SM] That might well be true. I have no insight any more on how = this affects commercial ISPs in the US either (I only tried two anyway = sonic and charter) >=20 > Bob >> Hi Sebastian, >> 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. >> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to >> contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been >> removed. The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract = carriage. >> And they are upgrading today. >> The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too = and >> have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly. >> The undeserved areas do need support. The BEAD monies may help. I >> think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL. >> Bob >> On Oct 8, 2023, 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. 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. >>> [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... >>> I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with >>> just a promise of maintenance. >>> [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... >>> 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. >>>> 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. >>> [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... >>>> 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. >>> [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 >>> ;) >>> 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. >>> [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. >>>> 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. >>> [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? >>> 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? >>> [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. >> = 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. >>> 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. >>> ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote >>> --- >>> 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 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. >>> 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? >>> 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.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 >> ------------------------- >> 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