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 1C9923CB37 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:02:21 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696834937; x=1697439737; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=azZ+4EPMYMugRYWsoGATDKvta7m3o/84ZTwYHhw32uI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=kNLPrUsznBirjTafv/EPApyd/L7BvGambFhzxjkvgxm3u6vs8ksYAgBs2wnMO1duZNWl+VKh3BD 9KPg3wXTQf8bD09TS2rhcBGh3s00HAQpt+sm0+GnMd05EQmEnMIhaPMaoh3rfV5a+XCCpvjTYO2qn DiiFANxngjDnyWyjNEai3x+Jf3C6Ce2ZfByFmGsRp9ZQsUEAiqoNQSqYY6h7c2Dt4MOAl0rzHwy8t ZTH9dkHhTNsCpoTVxmMR1k32z3XzLSwGv5ygUb4HOJ9T9/esN5FokyIxF87SCoUoSFbnuUo+J6+FN YgDe0bquwgKmePoDnDe8f6HuKELnOsSVd9mA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1McH9Y-1rS6tw496K-00ceRV; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:02:17 +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: <1a72b73f37cc5832732c943def42a669@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 08:30:24 +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: References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> <886C6C10-7C9A-4D2F-B9D7-5C018CC4852C@gmx.de> <1a72b73f37cc5832732c943def42a669@rjmcmahon.com> To: rjmcmahon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:164iaVb9P4hekspn2BEEPmUEJ+irmt3CeVDm2yuHf9XBz56cMHv hvybzjHDdQZUCQRxJiO5t4BtG9EkSkkAoqYLDfARimJ0x1r3aEKLVQdJArzr1jXE2zAgRXp I5HxcaxEgaqjPreZWPTdaeEgBnT9cf0I/uh+NPKw5o2sK3R6jPzuNqfRe4A85pmYPvRT9i9 ylbHQZ2FQbjSvAjKw538w== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Awj2tjtYfJM=;74MvRJU9bcZpryjZd5gV5LY046P Xl1drjKGE7aBgy69ASW6muypcaFUGEasDiXxQhgRJ6w4DuX6KdbC4Et4AtNP19nkQ/gl6jKbr FP2EHjvT+vWuKnvO11kT+77vsPB00Uf0oicQA4YqItL7HiuqslMvklRMwjEDtrVsTI9G2sG0t bIh53Ooa9Mk88PQn9OZiOLZEL+5gKuYVWEV9f1bpvlJjaqDXAkSMqYgaaChHolelsr16VdRGL cbYRpF1/jy9Ed+NZFsK07mTlpj/cCxvHxkIg+VD3vgDBGippELCjz2KvDY86nrn0DUfTmiBR5 x2g5yC3ekctz0+emwLlBYY8RoitPlxs6MMX8UvcSuRM9Ximdc4VYtJmbmjn4GfuS/dfitzm/H JFOIIWA+KYpBRlIiCblsDwI5UNg+tVQM9XRsKLUuLsbw9LKBwVTyjdepCXbGhXpLgBr8VxgfC +fdPuFARnImmKAJOiRRY8H/9V/3t9vY6p6fOBXhKZOr9KGUhuGzShUxeNfwt/qilQHukDN0/A lylCgczIOdYiOyJmqacHt1lTgl8BAHLP+D+01C/DGVLvs1P/Cf0jNM9pLnETlodvGZXGuGjaf yZr/yd72ddy4HpF7kuEd/ZyyKJmBkn1bfW4fE0xLDuF3Of6L0Xj4kuwUFwaKSlDVXxtBacvLg ptx8hhNnlrs6Kuwl7kB5wlhNXE8nm4+S67bm/FEy6OmQCTh1Q0ce+h574+wqHsYNby2kn289o jE01Ea0UmQpRpGYYGgEuOVL84YogDMhWw/QPHgzKMYI82YERCXuBEj5IIwxMOcQdwj/Wwkbas msKAMPDX9ezyOxpZ+YPhnL6txhmLRn6os0BCFyKtZVuL9pLBms4jlzHaNxzveYLoGpTKCBLV7 o6iz4MUDE9NiK/35CCyITap9DWYhluwONr4ib7zLAgFpFWJzQesFgjw6Qqjb74FVsMOX4PcYJ z14jmD7h8u2GO5AIrBOHMkGdX60= 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: Mon, 09 Oct 2023 07:02:22 -0000 Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:18, rjmcmahon wrote: >=20 > Tragedy of the commons occurs because the demand & free price for the = common resources outstrips supply. Free cow grazing in Boston Commons = only worked for 70 cows and then collapsed. [SM] Here is the thing, if the carrying capacity is/was 70 the = local regulator would have needed to make sure that at no time there = were more than 70 cows and come up with a schedule... so from my vantage = point that was insufficient regulation and/or enforcement...=20 > Over fishing in multiple places today are killing off a "wild" food = supply. [SM] Same thing ;) > The regulator tries to manage the demand while keeping prices = artificially low, typically for political/populism reasons, vs finding = ways to increase or substitute supply and create incentives for = investment. In the U.S., they seem to ultimately give up (regulatory = capture is a form of resignation) and let so-called privatization occur = (barbed wire ranches throughout Texas vs free roaming) which also allows = ownership & market forces to come into play, even if imperfectly. [SM] We had a large helping of this over here as well during the = 90ies neo-liberal "revolution" where European states privatized = previously state owned property on the theory that on private hands this = property would generate more income for all. It turns out the "all" in = the promise was not the same all initially hoped for... in some cases = these privatizations worked out OK-ish in others not so much... I am old = enough to remember the less than perfect sides of our old Bundespost = monopoly telco but I also see what is going wrong in the new shiny world = of private telcos... (it was easier to steer a nationally owned telco in = a macro-economic sensible direction, with private owned companies often = micro-economics get in the way ;) ) > I do like the idea of a benevolent and all wise regulator that can = move society forward. > I just don't see it in the U.S. We seem to struggle with a functional = Congress that can govern and and ethically based SCOTUS which are not = nearly as nuanced as technology and the ongoing digital transformation. [SM] Yes, given the apparent disfunction and vitriol between the = two sides on the last decade getting things done for the future = efficiently and bipartisanly looks a bit bleak... nasty as from my = perspective the US system is essentially "designed/evolved" to operate = with two opposed parties that still manage to get things done together = by compromising. > Today, the FCC can only regulate decaying affiliate broadcast news and = stays silent about "news" distortions despite an insurrection that still = threatens the Republic. > Sorry to lose confidence in them but we need to see the world as it = is. [SM] I am with you here, the US media landscape looks quite = hellish from over here (not that we do not have our own issues with = increasing polarization in our society). Yet, what can the FCC do if = Congress does not agree on what to do here...=20 >=20 > https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting >=20 > News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning = broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired = inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories = inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the = reasons noted previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in = these cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to = replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, = as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort = the news. The FCC has stated that =E2=80=9Crigging or slanting the news = is a most heinous act against the public interest.=E2=80=9D The = Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives = documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other = documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a = licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of = the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to = employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent = such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. [SM] I guess as noted the first amendment to the constitution is = a pretty big issue here, making it hard to interject in cases that are = not clear beyond a reasonable doubt... IMHO the real solution is making = sure people are well-educated enough to see though the cheap attempts of = manipulating opinions, but that might be hoping too much, and certainly = is not a short term solution... Sebastian >=20 > Bob >=20 >> 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: >>> 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. >> [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... >>> 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. >>> The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too = and have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly. >> [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. >>> 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. >>> 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