From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (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 12AE03CB37 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 03:40:49 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1696837245; x=1697442045; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=Api1fAn6rfAgwntWvOpPG/3zGrZGxhnh2reuh2ZvbfE=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=bOz0UYhybLGoPtzOYSz3az2x3DM4eyNlx6oVYFbOBTXPG6057CfAN86d7pm1YG6mB8j4s8MnJKc DpQOg9aLQhFSAgV6HcoHiTKS45F1E9tSoDFNiMqTehPG5awqjonAngAAgSTxwuoEBpxuqlY/vOQIO O2h1m1nV69fHbJP7sYdxV9crpiewWtIXx1Lm3B+TbiqPc07v46C5Sq6fKRCIliycNrYIEr1Tqn1mE ERpGRYmYqgI9mPdnVZ7WWKzaBMjDZEafa6q6NumVKpfTXGKE3yXj3pK8uY0VPZd5b3Z6kDQJOQPGz z6vcV5Clhl9ePQk3j0vQgCQ46QLKJt4FsowQ== 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 1M3lYB-1qovfS1o9L-000qpN; Mon, 09 Oct 2023 09:40:45 +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: <5e89d58588cc0509e61b0696a22d4b6c@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:40:44 +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> <5e89d58588cc0509e61b0696a22d4b6c@rjmcmahon.com> To: rjmcmahon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:tLyNL6MbxB+G9jU25LyiVS+IfcA+acWcuucqSPpnGrBUAUwvJow lnhMDPQMcKUvtczMQAxwDndewz7Tvy/KKLarEeD+MmmKb9Q3qHqhTBBihW09g505I6/faoE eXil5V0Sh6Z3nmoDfL+vgumNiBmscEz/jADyRrO/DYoOStpy8goMfoCR4ns8x6/XTBMkUkO MgognMNG1mqCBjA3rYthA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:mBz14UCjfPI=;DGEd/NJupNMIbwScnHlIcswbm6B mi3eRy1gnOPMPR3HmFSmRyWSitAZViDrSAxj9OltfCHcnuJ6l85DCqNX9/Jo37zUFVLMQiN4N 9asjVfEsqpUKU3N80tVzj0WcQWq64SaT5GTskkLmMk27oJ9YuMtNjujP6G4uevfSYANyyJyjd mxuBT2IoSaig2Va/GtReQAs2p3HY1KP5boKo0iQt6rsCmYVqE4eYFdD3Kawm2IRTAhODMh89i a6UBpqMgkKTV7A3qG9BnwWqEZbp2dXVZeAZxPb1jRn+Qo8iunxFC43ZcgHXjkw2C1n3Z/6RdY DJvMwOWWxd6JfPFWH/1Sw//0x+0ymhDKxya6pjFGtfM0OohHFvWgGNi0MLFEX+AvD73kZix/W i55M1ifkoQjZzxhKrLPpx5M0IzUbkLstfjvxAeh8Fo2/dipDZgU+fgIZwPG3HhFCnscWGmVfP J+WbxQ5FXcLgCYBd8ORVJm2r8CWnuRmNOD9iLEuK1g2D21dmfeR3NyCO2f7NHfiYhGGscSzLq zGmKU9oSxts0fNEu08NMFmr3/bIAt4P4U8wMcihsYggiJ1SgH4zqKaSd/pomdao8WmoUOD4BK b00I8GMPYFzHG3aSYFRfz1xhdjAkyoHVSQ/H+z7zlKuMM4WQwpzIidQlIeK8ADTZ34g3UBWpw vWG+w1iBalhtfxX+LNy3Fm4vfZC77b5GuZSGh23DCHGRqqTS0QbgK0BDFNf5Hq0W9v0o9A2IN mlJVguMPl6wYsJP5NQREtlTc5drL2Ipda65QLNOz/ULf5xFy5BOKpfHysug9cueEnxrJ8fNAE 33ObX7Dwn3obZRbEXoGESfB7nZnqV5AJ9Pf22LBP+ppfEtGFpSXPFRhtfzF5fqmhY5X+fTe3K ABI9yi3gwozEeDCKE+C9BfFBODk7Dvd0r1HknUre2AZOamoXbY5knlciZ+Nr06JhWSnz9RwL8 YKX5TE45Us1NDAivRceRCRJCEZY= 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 07:40:50 -0000 Hi Bob, > On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon wrote: >=20 > Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural = separation model in comm infrastructure. [SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the = future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment... >=20 > 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. But today it's PON = at best which implies a communal decision process vs individual one. [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). 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. 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... micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in the 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). *) 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.g. the cost of = the individual fibers (not that this would stop bean-counter types to = still minimize the number of fiber cables...). **) 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. 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... ***) Not only control of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely = means a larger wholesale price as well. > Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades = and once done, are slow to change. [SM] LUS already offer symmetric 10G links... 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... Also a small ISP likely can not = afford 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). > The decision process time vs tech timelines exacerbate this. Somebody = has to predict the future - great for investors & speculators, not so = for regulators looking backwards. [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?=20= > Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither = LUS nor Glasgow solved that. [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. Regards Sebastian >=20 > 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.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. >>> 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 :) >> 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) >>> 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 = multiplexingThe FCC has stated that =E2=80=9Crigging or slanting the = news is a most heinous act against the public interest.=E2=80=9D >>>>> - 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