From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (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 D21D83B2A4 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 02:13:44 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696918418; x=1697523218; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=+fA9R5aEWJzyhkaDA9GshW4qXB2+9ibZSCVjlDieT7I=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:From:To:CC:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Y7XYk/58Cd9yjO2tli/ofSVCbe+S0mEIAuI15Ow4gB0ecH+EOgIc9LkTEXyfhwP6VbViwj+mxeK CRvO7G7nnYX7nMsy84p5PPBWtl4MqDJlipAevoKKNln32SJ35ZNvqGLuT7hl2IvJZp4hkXXiBdFTm OfG0vG5n1NRzELBrqFaPo7XPNWS0g5dXlWs18QnhMmFUjrkCEvLvkyNwqikWvfPEKq0SmhHF+FzU7 6EUxh/GeZ/4Ha8h2iiuRFbuE7IUuxkKA52MpaKZ0wkQYhpm4tpSnhZJlkg/p5DJSL4n4VbMaB1LZj Ck1z3OHo1S5OSXL5eRPLwGZiD99TgUJhIMsQ== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([80.187.125.78]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1My36N-1rn1J70mPH-00zVdY; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:13:38 +0200 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:13:35 +0200 From: Sebastian Moeller To: Robert McMahon CC: Dave Taht via Nnagain User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> <88139a6c8a4220851d25a9cfa1185159@rjmcmahon.com> <5e89d58588cc0509e61b0696a22d4b6c@rjmcmahon.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:FtY8WukiAZKHOMFqD7sP7BfB4avKXEFbPvtBX3c/1OzbyPiUnPM 0D6qpRdaTjKkiNhge1WHCZqVJjqqrfCtFIJa5ZITmXAh4vo601mTBq1Z12F0C5McjVpnn+q Lg5Qisrfidku0L0BPZrKCkHZzceze+q5LIscvM9/9jQ7rYbFiquns488iPSMlkeXK+WAleo lAyG+JlGoqIYZg9sSu7KQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:5DI5GP1ls9A=;v669w60dlyGsYRRkzsjvWBCLFqj UMr5cm0kQGhy7UFWzuvemqSa2RQu+ykWG5KBMa+nHYVwUBC+dhQYXv0GmXDpsN5wRLuP5PX91 ne2zL0hIkWXY6qXRtVYSXkBx9dhNAm8V0jSXxSMU07QPNLFvYmFx1ktGSRoCT+QRvXuS0AXpc +0GJM8QLga54Ys7+ggNrfgEIVWs6FIlrzNZyWY1Y+KyowIhj/RGIIF/G4bOMjUYoPwNGLlr92 806+h3EoBSwhZ3xxJmPSSEBeUIeRAifDZXcUY9p4KXZdXU/sOII8eTS2QCAJcLBBC1RdC7bIA s30QcPnRjUdXKGqfsOJcd4nVRwDz03oCxsxCy2j/2SVGnXkAeJAenBP23zkMmWpQpH/IfuM/i 2ULqkyUWdiq6ffqABs6pZIuDDOYYD4X9E3FwZfgylhbssLOaQtqrvqgMgxmifb6qQP5lDDAoY a1ltP6YjoTzQo/7yIqcq2Wm2YG/yisu2FZwhKISK/thFY6kAUcAWCn16YzYcKPWzST5sjdKqD U4RH5CBw890Z5aKf2H84YHxLDURCtCnPwgBCXvsNQVm9IOEkKkVEcsAO3eLl5uaw14YhtI2DQ DVyVHlETuQ65KMcC3vyZXUI+x+UWviKsBdBQFPv7HtU1W2qY7JRQHq+hGWku2j0Rfm1W2i9MN xUYOJ3v042pltWSj05uAoKavviPyoZM9i/r59WTDpZucUnJQy9tNku45Z94/R8ZKYqWVRYlU0 w2Gq6f653UCLJjGHj3GFDC/Vb3Wt9NNLEQ2aAHuBsB8aMoaoW2H7uwpFJSJq70r1bQBqiJf8a LrQQtyMy3UhuCppJJ/XnQiQRarF8g8Alg/x8cj4yOfKyuWWPOZUrqQblie6kDzyHLzTptarIn gmZMFJK35LvWEV7rAGac2QfDKGav/ZTu57mbY1Gr5TpbCKqSuFVznDKGFUohl/pZQDLnpukkx Z9BqTNVNvvhunRvtGip34pkOcgc= 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: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 06:13:45 -0000 Hi Bob=2E On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon wrote: >Hi Sebastian, > >The NRE per chip starts at $100M=2E It's multiplr semiconductors that now= define a networks and data centers capabilitied=2E A small municipal overb= uilder is not a market maker=2E [SM] Sure, a small outfit is essentially forced to use off the shelf compo= nents, though they might innovate a bit on the software side, like libreqos= =2E But for one of the biggest current challenges, getting fiber out to all= residences/businesses is that really an issue? > >So yes, an overbuilder that can't fund ASIC NRE needs to be intimately aw= are of both market dynamics and the state of engineering, of today, tomorro= w and the next 20-30 years as that's typically the life of the municipal bo= nds=2E [SM] In a dark fiber model, this will not matter too much, no? For a light= ed fiber approach 20-30 years require 2-4 technology generations which seem= s hard to predict=2E=2E=2E then again the biggest cost is likely the fiber = access network, the active tech might by financable out of the cash flow? > >Investors aren't govt=2E bond holders and investor owned companies can ta= ke more risk=2E If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors= lose=2E If it works, they win=2E Big difference=2E [SM] Building that fiber plant seems like a pretty save bet to me, allowin= g for longterm financing=2E Interestigly over here some insurrances got int= o the FTTH build-out game, obviously considering it a viable long term inve= stment, though population density is higher here than in the US likely affe= cting cost and amortisation periods=2E=2E=2E > >=E2=81=A3Bob > >On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >>Hi Bob, >> >>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I get it=2E I think we're just too early for a structural >>separation model in comm infrastructure=2E >> >>[SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the >>future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment=2E=2E=2E >> >> >>> >>> I think when we get to mix & match DSP/optics and point to point >>fiber in the OSPs, as done in data centers, it may change=2E But today >>it's PON at best which implies a communal decision process vs >>individual one=2E >> >>[SM] There are IMHO two components to the AON (Point to >>MultiPoint/PtMP)/PON (Point to Point/PtP) debate: >>a) PONs are cheaper to operate, as they require less power (on the ISP >>side) and space (depending on where the passive splitters are located)= =2E >>b) Structural PONs with splitters out in the field (to realize space >>saving in the CO) are less flexible, one can always operate a PtMP >>plant as PON, but converting a structural PON to AON likely requires >>putting new fibers into the ground=2E >> >>The first part is something I am not too concerned about, the coming >>FTTH access network is going to operate for decades, so I could not >>care less about what active technology is going to be used in the next >>decade (I assume that ISPs tryto keep the same tech operational for ~ a >>decade, but for PON that might be too pessimistic), the second part is >>different though=2E=2E=2E micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in t= he >>field (lower up front cost* AND less potential for regulatory >>intervention**) while the macro-economic perspective makes PtP more >>attractive (offering more flexibility over the expected life time of >>multiple decades)=2E >> >> >> >>*) One big item, the cost for actually deploying the fiber to is not >>all that sensitive, if you put fiber into the ground the traditional >>way, typically the cost of the earth works dominates over e=2Eg=2E the c= ost >>of the individual fibers (not that this would stop bean-counter types >>to still minimize the number of fiber cables=2E=2E=2E)=2E >> >>**) With PtP the potential exists that a regulator (likely not the FCC) >>could force an ISP to offer dark-fibers to end customers at wholesale >>prices, with PtMP the ISP having build out likely will stay in control >>of the active tech in each segment (might be forced to offer bitstream >>access***) so potential competitors will not be able to offer >>better/faster technology on the shared fiber=2E That is some of the PONs >>are backward compatible and in theory on the same PON tree one ISP >>might be operating GPON while another ISP might theoreticallu offer >>XGS-PON on the same segment, but I think this is a rather theoretical >>construct unlikely to happen quantitatively=2E=2E=2E >> >>***) Not only control of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely >>means a larger wholesale price as well=2E >> >> >>> Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades >>and once done, are slow to change=2E >> >> [SM] LUS already offer symmetric 10G links=2E=2E=2E they do not seem to= be >>lagging behind, the main criticism seems to be that they are somewhat >>more expensive than the big ISPs, which is not all that surprising >>given that they will not be able to leverage scale effects all that >>much simply by being small=2E=2E=2E Also a small ISP likely can not affo= rd a >>price war with a much larger company (that can afford to serve below >>cost in areas it competes with smaller ISPs in an attempt to drive >>those smaller ones out of the market, after which prices likely >>increase again)=2E >> >> >>> The decision process time vs tech timelines exacerbate this=2E Somebod= y >>has to predict the future - great for investors & speculators, not so >>for regulators looking backwards=2E >> >> [SM] I am not convinced that investors/speculators actually do a much >>better job predicting the future, just look at how much VC is wadted on >>hare-brained schemes like NFTs/crypto currencies and the like? >> >>> Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither >>LUS nor Glasgow solved that=2E >> >> [SM] But do they need to solve that? Would it not be enough to simply >>keep offering something that in their service area is considered good >>enough by the customers? Whether they do or do not, I can not tell=2E >> >> >>Regards >> Sebastian >> >> >>> >>> Bob >>>> Hi Bob, >>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon >>wrote: >>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>>> Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U=2ES=2E muni >>network started around 1994=2E It looks like a one and done type >>investment=2E Their offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now >>seems to have fallen behind for the last few decades=2E >>>>> https://www=2Eglasgowepb=2Ecom/internet-packages/ >>>>> https://communitynets=2Eorg/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=2E The challenge is to decide when to upgrade=2E= =2E=2E >>>> 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=2E 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=2E=2E=2E=2E The real idea is to keep those things that wi= ll >>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=2E=2E=2E 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=2E >>>>> LUS is similar if this article is to be believed=2E >>https://thecurrentla=2Ecom/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/ >>>> [SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard=2E=2E=2E as t= he >>>> offers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e=2Eg=2E L= US >>>> 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=2E=2E=2E (in Germany prices fo= r >>>> 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)=2E >>>>> 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=2E https://www=2Elusfiber=2Ecom/net-neutrality >>>> [SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would try >>them >>>> out, then I could report on the details here :) >>>> Browsing their documentation I am not a big fan of their volume >>limits >>>> though, I consider these to be absurd measures of control=2E=2E=2E=2E= (absurd >>>> in that they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for >>the >>>> actual cost)=2E >>>>> This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving >>too quickly for municipal approaches=2E >>>> [SM] That might well be true=2E I have no insight any more on how >>this >>>> affects commercial ISPs in the US either (I only tried two anyway >>>> sonic and charter) >>>>> Bob >>>>>> 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 tragedy of the >>>>>> commons=2E >>>>>> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild=2E They used wireless and went t= o >>>>>> contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been >>>>>> removed=2E The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract >>carriage=2E >>>>>> And they are upgrading today=2E >>>>>> The tech companies providing content & services 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 relegated to DSL=2E >>>>>> 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=2E 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=2E >>>>>>> [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=2E=2E=2E which in a densely populat= ed >>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 becomes 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 that anybody over here moved much compute into >>these=2E=2E=2E >>>>>>> (there 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 data 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, 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 colocation, an >>>>>>> outdated waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI would have won >>over >>>>>>> Cat 5), and market reasons=2E The early ISPs didn't collocate, the= y >>>>>>> bought T1s and E1s and connected the TDM to statistical >>multiplexingThe FCC has stated that =E2=80=9Crigging or slanting the new= s is a >>most heinous act against the public interest=2E=E2=80=9D >>>>>>> - no major investment there either=2E >>>>>>>> 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=2E The 2000 >>>>>>>> blow up was kinda real=2E >>>>>>> [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=2E=2E=2E >>>>>>>> She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in >>>>>>>> the right place=2E That's like trying to share a flashlight=2E Sh= e >>has >>>>>>>> access to the FCC technology group full of capable engineers=2E >>They >>>>>>>> should have told her to install some structured 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 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=2E My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad >>dedicating >>>>>>> a front end module for her distance learning needs=2E I think her >>>>>>> story to justify title II regulation 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 >>infrastructure >>>>>>> like internet access in private hands without appropriate >>oversight=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 delivery 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 households and 33M businesses, >>almost >>>>>>>> none of which have any idea about the complexities of the >>>>>>>> internet=2E >>>>>>> [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=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 national regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating >>between >>>>>>> the interests of both sides=2E >>>>>> >>https://about=2Eusps=2Ecom/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery=2Ehtm= #:~:text=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%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 revoked/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, the >>telephone >>>>>>> companies started charging the small phone and DSL providers >>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 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/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1=2Epdf >>>>>>> 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=2E 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=2E Obviously there are many >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> possible root causes=2E >>>>>>> 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=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/nnagain >>>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>>>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain --=20 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E