[NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Dave Taht]

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 Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Mark Steckel]

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 Täht CSO, LibreQos
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nnagain mailing list
 > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
 > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
 > 

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

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

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. 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.

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. 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?

https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.

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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Mark Steckel]

Sorry they abandoned your local loop.

Timing is everything when discussing the RBOCs, CLECS, DSL ISPs and the abandonment of the copper plant.

The CLEC DSL ISPs started disappearing after the CLEC equal access rules where changed in 2004/2005. The RBOCs started abandoning their copper plant in earnest in the mid 2010s.

I would argue that the RBOCs decided to abandon their copper plant because of the high cost to upgrade it, especially given the under investment in maintenance, and not because of Title II regulations. Investment spending on CapEx, especially for maintenance, hurts the stock price. Not spending CapEx and taking a asset tax write-off raises the stock price. Eating your seed cord might be good for the quarterly stock price, but is bad in the long term. But the exec and Wall Street operate based on IBGYBG (I'll be gone. You'll be gone.)



 ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:13:07 -0400  rjmcmahon  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. I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper 
 > with just a promise of maintenance. 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.
 > 
 > 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. 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.
 > 
 > 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. 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?
 > 
 > https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
 > 
 > 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 Täht 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
 > 

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

I'm ok with letting the local loop go along with the dial up MODEMs. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dial_up_modem_noises.ogg Technology 
marches on. Today, WiFi does that 30 second training tone in 4 usecs per 
every transmit and a WiFi is rated at 2.5Gb/s per spatial stream, with 
two radios per FEM being common. Three FEMs per device which enables MLO 
and lower latency, first TXOP win goes. CMOS radio density is also 
improving too. I'm not really interested in going backwards per DSL/CLEC 
nostalgia.

I'm not ok with the FCC allowing Rupert Murdoch, not even a native born 
U.S. citizen, using our "FCC regulated" broadcast media against our own 
Republic. The FCC complained when Janet Jackson had a breast mishap 
during a Superbowl but nada since a full blown insurrection where people 
were killed and maimed, denying an election.

Maybe some priorities are in order for the FCC five?

Title II is basically common carriage. I think it was Bruce Kuschnick 
https://kushnickbruce.medium.com/ who would write about how regulators 
required the RBOCs to invest in fiber for the local loop per their rate 
regulations but it never happened. Even after decades of trying.

We also had the 2000 dot com bubble where money was cheap and much fiber 
was deployed, but still not in the local loops except for FiOS. I think 
it is the planar light wave circuit that's enabled more PON today. That 
combined with FDX & DAAC allows the contract carriage wired cos to keep 
improving their OSPs. Adding title II burden's to them seems a mistake. 
I shudder if we burden our wired access and in turn favor the RBOC's 
FWA. That seems a big mistake despite all the lobbyists arguing 
otherwise. The unlicensed spectrum engineers can win by a lot but the 
system needs OSP wires too and these companies need to be able to 
compete fairly despite so much misinformation.

Disclaimer: All these are my opinions and don't represent those of my 
employer.

Bob


> Sorry they abandoned your local loop.
> 
> Timing is everything when discussing the RBOCs, CLECS, DSL ISPs and
> the abandonment of the copper plant.
> 
> The CLEC DSL ISPs started disappearing after the CLEC equal access
> rules where changed in 2004/2005. The RBOCs started abandoning their
> copper plant in earnest in the mid 2010s.
> 
> I would argue that the RBOCs decided to abandon their copper plant
> because of the high cost to upgrade it, especially given the under
> investment in maintenance, and not because of Title II regulations.
> Investment spending on CapEx, especially for maintenance, hurts the
> stock price. Not spending CapEx and taking a asset tax write-off
> raises the stock price. Eating your seed cord might be good for the
> quarterly stock price, but is bad in the long term. But the exec and
> Wall Street operate based on IBGYBG (I'll be gone. You'll be gone.)
> 
> 
> 
>  ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:13:07 -0400  rjmcmahon  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. I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop 
> copper
>  > with just a promise of maintenance. 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.
>  >
>  > 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. 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.
>  >
>  > 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. 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?
>  >
>  >
> https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>  >
>  > 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 Täht 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
>  >

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

The history of TV is also informative. The NYC "nationals" like NBC won 
by controlling the expensive part, quality content production supported 
by ads. It seemed obvious that a local could win by inserting their own 
ads and ignoring those from NBC as an example. Broadcast rights stopped 
that and local broadcasters all over the country were fated to be 
affiliates.

The FCC should be concerned about content rights payments and that 
fairness more than ISP bit fairness and priorities. All the content is 
end to end encrypted so the last mile OSPs aren't the right place to 
manage an essential function like access to information, news & 
knowledge. They're basically barking up the wrong tree, similar to the 
whole 1996 Telco Act which was backwards looking legislation.

Bob
> I'm ok with letting the local loop go along with the dial up MODEMs.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dial_up_modem_noises.ogg Technology
> marches on. Today, WiFi does that 30 second training tone in 4 usecs
> per every transmit and a WiFi is rated at 2.5Gb/s per spatial stream,
> with two radios per FEM being common. Three FEMs per device which
> enables MLO and lower latency, first TXOP win goes. CMOS radio density
> is also improving too. I'm not really interested in going backwards
> per DSL/CLEC nostalgia.
> 
> I'm not ok with the FCC allowing Rupert Murdoch, not even a native
> born U.S. citizen, using our "FCC regulated" broadcast media against
> our own Republic. The FCC complained when Janet Jackson had a breast
> mishap during a Superbowl but nada since a full blown insurrection
> where people were killed and maimed, denying an election.
> 
> Maybe some priorities are in order for the FCC five?
> 
> Title II is basically common carriage. I think it was Bruce Kuschnick
> https://kushnickbruce.medium.com/ who would write about how regulators
> required the RBOCs to invest in fiber for the local loop per their
> rate regulations but it never happened. Even after decades of trying.
> 
> We also had the 2000 dot com bubble where money was cheap and much
> fiber was deployed, but still not in the local loops except for FiOS.
> I think it is the planar light wave circuit that's enabled more PON
> today. That combined with FDX & DAAC allows the contract carriage
> wired cos to keep improving their OSPs. Adding title II burden's to
> them seems a mistake. I shudder if we burden our wired access and in
> turn favor the RBOC's FWA. That seems a big mistake despite all the
> lobbyists arguing otherwise. The unlicensed spectrum engineers can win
> by a lot but the system needs OSP wires too and these companies need
> to be able to compete fairly despite so much misinformation.
> 
> Disclaimer: All these are my opinions and don't represent those of my 
> employer.
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
>> Sorry they abandoned your local loop.
>> 
>> Timing is everything when discussing the RBOCs, CLECS, DSL ISPs and
>> the abandonment of the copper plant.
>> 
>> The CLEC DSL ISPs started disappearing after the CLEC equal access
>> rules where changed in 2004/2005. The RBOCs started abandoning their
>> copper plant in earnest in the mid 2010s.
>> 
>> I would argue that the RBOCs decided to abandon their copper plant
>> because of the high cost to upgrade it, especially given the under
>> investment in maintenance, and not because of Title II regulations.
>> Investment spending on CapEx, especially for maintenance, hurts the
>> stock price. Not spending CapEx and taking a asset tax write-off
>> raises the stock price. Eating your seed cord might be good for the
>> quarterly stock price, but is bad in the long term. But the exec and
>> Wall Street operate based on IBGYBG (I'll be gone. You'll be gone.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 18:13:07 -0400  rjmcmahon  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. I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop 
>> copper
>>  > with just a promise of maintenance. 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.
>>  >
>>  > 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. 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.
>>  >
>>  > 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. 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?
>>  >
>>  >
>> https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>  >
>>  > 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob,

On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>
>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 Täht 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7912 bytes --]

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, 2:38 AM, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
><nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>
>>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 Täht 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
>
>--
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9376 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

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

LUS is similar if this article is to be believed. 
https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/

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

This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving too 
quickly for municipal approaches.

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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bob,
>> 
>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>> 
>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob,



> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural separation 
model in comm infrastructure.

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. 
Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades and 
once done, are slow to change. 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.

Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither LUS 
nor Glasgow solved that.

Bob
> Hi Bob,
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is 
>>>> a most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>> - 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob,

> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
> 
> 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...


> 
> 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? 

> 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


> 
> Bob
>> Hi Bob,
>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>>> - 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>>>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17512 bytes --]

Hi Sebastian,

The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that now define a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal overbuilder is not a market maker.

So yes, an overbuilder that can't fund ASIC NRE needs to be intimately aware of both market dynamics and the state of engineering, of today, tomorrow and the next 20-30 years as that's typically the life of the municipal bonds.

Investors aren't govt. bond holders and investor owned companies can take more risk. If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose. If it works, they win. Big difference.

⁣Bob

On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>
>> 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
>
>
>>
>> Bob
>>> Hi Bob,
>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
>wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>>>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is a
>most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>>>> - 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>>>>> 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 Täht 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20490 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob.

On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>Hi Sebastian,
>
>The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that now define a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal overbuilder is not a market maker.

[SM] Sure, a small outfit is essentially forced to use off the shelf components, though they might innovate a bit on the software side, like libreqos. 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 aware of both market dynamics and the state of engineering, of today, tomorrow and the next 20-30 years as that's typically the life of the municipal bonds.

[SM] In a dark fiber model, this will not matter too much, no? For a lighted fiber approach 20-30 years require 2-4 technology generations which seems hard to predict... 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. bond holders and investor owned companies can take more risk. If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose. If it works, they win. Big difference.

[SM] Building that fiber plant seems like a pretty save bet to me, allowing for longterm financing. Interestigly over here some insurrances got into the FTTH build-out game, obviously considering it a viable long term investment, though population density is higher here than in the US likely affecting cost and amortisation periods...

>
>⁣Bob
>
>On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>>>>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is a
>>most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>>>>> - 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>>>>>> 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 Täht 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

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 20655 bytes --]

The Markeley Group in Boston charges $2500 to $5000 per month to lease a dark fiber strand into their colo. The labor to install is on the wanna be isp. One has to provide the colo switches and pay Colo fees, peering fees and transit fees. The only long lived parts are the fiber, patch panels and building which are not sufficient by themselves to operate a modern ISP. Switch tech is upgrading on silicon mfg cycles. Similar with optics though the MTBF is less than silicon, hence pluggables. And that's just interconnections and ignores compute.

https://www.markleygroup.com/

Then there are OSP pedestals and actives, optical amps e.g. via doped fiber,  too. Operating an optical OSP requires a skilled labor force.

I don't see a muni funding model that works. Maybe in 20 or 30 years but not today. I wish it were different. I think it is nice as an ideal but the economics don't seem to work. If they did, we would see the munis everywhere already. It's been proposed for over two decades now and nothing substantial has been built.

Bob

On Oct 9, 2023, 11:13 PM, at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>Hi Bob.
>
>On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon
><rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>Hi Sebastian,
>>
>>The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that
>now define a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal
>overbuilder is not a market maker.
>
>[SM] Sure, a small outfit is essentially forced to use off the shelf
>components, though they might innovate a bit on the software side, like
>libreqos. 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
>aware of both market dynamics and the state of engineering, of today,
>tomorrow and the next 20-30 years as that's typically the life of the
>municipal bonds.
>
>[SM] In a dark fiber model, this will not matter too much, no? For a
>lighted fiber approach 20-30 years require 2-4 technology generations
>which seems hard to predict... 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. bond holders and investor owned companies can
>take more risk. If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the
>investors lose. If it works, they win. Big difference.
>
>[SM] Building that fiber plant seems like a pretty save bet to me,
>allowing for longterm financing. Interestigly over here some
>insurrances got into the FTTH build-out game, obviously considering it
>a viable long term investment, though population density is higher here
>than in the US likely affecting cost and amortisation periods...
>
>>
>>⁣Bob
>>
>>On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller
><moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>Hi Bob,
>>>
>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>
>>>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 <moeller0@gmx.de>
>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>>>>>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is
>a
>>>most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>>>>>> - 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>>>>>>> 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 Täht 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
>
>--
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 55528 bytes --]

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

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 <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> 
> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
> 
> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[rjmcmahon]

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. Over fishing in multiple 
places today are killing off a "wild" food supply.

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.

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.

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.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting

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 “rigging or slanting the news is a 
most heinous act against the public interest.”  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.

Bob

> 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 <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 
>> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> 
>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain 
>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>> 
>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Bob,


> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:18, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
> 
> 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... 

> 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... 

> 
> https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting
> 
> 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 “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”  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


> 
> Bob
> 
>> 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 <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> 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 <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>> 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 Täht 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

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Dave Taht]

I had found henning shulzerine's projections as to the death of POTs
very compelling when he presented at ietf 86 back in 2013. I cannot
find the video, but there are all sorts of great charts and data here
worth reflecting about and updating.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TG0f18_ySAb4rJtC2SGeYPoY2oMdh0NS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107942175615993706558&rtpof=true&sd=true

Unfortunately he presently has a gig with the NTIA and probably cannot
participate here in the current contexts (although I like to think all
that we will end up discussing will impact multiple agencies, NIST,
and FEMA, for example)

Still looking for better DSL data....

On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:22 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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 Täht CSO, LibreQos



-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,

On 8 October 2023 02:07:50 CEST, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>I had found henning shulzerine's projections as to the death of POTs

[SM] One argument was that POTs switches were getting hard to come by, but I find this hard to believe that generally stated, hard to come by at prices competitive with IP gear might be closer to reality, and clearly the more ISPs switched to VoIP the smaller the market for POTs gear and hence the incentive to develop new generations of switches...


>very compelling when he presented at ietf 86 back in 2013. I cannot
>find the video, but there are all sorts of great charts and data here
>worth reflecting about and updating.
>
>https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TG0f18_ySAb4rJtC2SGeYPoY2oMdh0NS/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=107942175615993706558&rtpof=true&sd=true
>
>Unfortunately he presently has a gig with the NTIA and probably cannot
>participate here in the current contexts (although I like to think all
>that we will end up discussing will impact multiple agencies, NIST,
>and FEMA, for example)
>
>Still looking for better DSL data....

[SM] I found a site claiming ~80% coverage with DSL in the US but no information about actually usage or distribution into capacity tiers or technologies. Making that reference not even worth posting....


>
>On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 2:22 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> 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 Täht CSO, LibreQos
>
>
>
>-- 
>Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Dave,


> On Oct 7, 2023, at 23:22, Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> 
> I have a lot to unpack from this:
> 
> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf

Thanks for the link, I think this contains solid arguments for the FCC's current position. I for one am convinced that internet access is a game served well by having referees with "teeth".


> 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.

Since in other markets, introduction of NN/open internet regulations did not kill local loop unbundling this is IMHO not a strict consequence of sch regulations, but might be related to the exact process and scope of those regulations.


> 
> DSL continued to get better and evolve,

No shit, with sufficient short links G.fast offers capacity in the gigabit range, and up to 500m VDSL2 can deliver 100/40 Mbps...

> but it definately suffers from
> many reports of degraded copper quality,

For sure, once the cables are bad interference increases and achievable capacity drops quickly, and stability takes a hit.


> but does an estimate exist
> for how much working DSL is left?
> 
> Q0) How much DSL is in the EU?

This differs wildly by country, but here are some numbers for 2021 (which hence will likely over estimate the number of DSL links somewhat):
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/303187/umfrage/anteil-der-dsl-anschluesse-an-allen-breitbandanschluessen-in-laendern-der-eu/


> Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA?

As option or as actually booked contract?


> Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?)

I have no authoritative answer to Q1-3, but I can answer a Q4 (Amount of active access links per technology in Germany in 2022) you did not ask
see https://www.brekoverband.de/site/assets/files/37980/breko_marktanalyse_2023-1.pdf slide 11:
FTTH/B:	 3,400,000	: mostly PtMP GPON, a bit PtP AON ethernet, and some VDSL2 and G.fast (for in house distribution for some FTTB links)
HFC:	 8,700,000	: mix of DOCSIS 3.0 and DOCSIS 3.1, speeds up to 1000/50
VDSL:	19,500,000	: ITU G.993.5, VDSL2 with Vectoring and ITU G.998.4 G.INP, profile 17a (up to 100/40 Mbps) or 35b (up to 250/40 Mbps)
ADSL:	 5,200,000	: ITU G.992.5, stuck on ATM/AAL5, gross speeds up to 24/3.5, marketed speeds up to 16/3.5 Mbps

So for 2022 100 * (19.5+5.2)/(3.4+8.7+19.5+5.2) = 67.12% DSL (of around 37 million access links).



Germany is straggling behind in the FTTH roll-out compared to most other EU countries (see https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/04/2023-full-fibre-country-ranking-sees-uk-coverage-accelerate-vs-eu39.html), but except for the 5.2 million links still on ADSL most users have access to adequate access rates to participate in the digital society (~78% of access links have booked rates >= 30 Mbps, see breko_marktanalyse_2023).
I would guess that Germany is only partially representative for Europe as a whole, as I see a clear interaction between the incumbent's tech replacement cycle and the state of FTTH deployment. IMHO Deutsche Telekom started its last modernization a bit too early to jump on the FTTH train and hence opted for upgrading ADSL/non vectoring VDSL2 to vectoring VDSL2 to allow speeds of 100 Mbps to counter the DOCSIS thread (sure DOCSIS was always faster so the goal was IMHO not to fall behind too much).

I also note that the incumbent in Germany is forced by regulation to virtual local loop unbundling, which now a days in practice typically means competitors buy bit stream access (BSA)#, both the BSA and the incumbent's DSL prices are ex-ante regulated, that is they need regulatory acceptance before coming into effect. The regulator aims at setting these prices such that the wholesale prices reflects the estimated cost of building/maintaining the copper infrastructure and the incumbent's prices leave room for competitors to undercut the incumbent's prices while still making a surplus. (The ex monopolist incumbent still is the single largest ISP, neither the fact that the resellers are generally cheaper, nor the fact that DOCSIS is generally both cheaper and faster managed to change that*). I personally think that this regulation works pretty well, my only beef with it is that the regulatory agency seems unwilling to accept that the largest DOCSIS ISP (Vodafone) is also too large and should be submitted to a similar regulatory regime, but I digress.

All that said, Germany is on track to replacing the copper access network with FTTH in the next decade (it has proven to be one of these moving goals always a few years out in the future ;)).


Regards
	Sebastian

#) VDSL2 vectoring requires on vectoring unit to be in control of all links in a wire bundle, so does not really work with strict local loop unbundling (at least not when DSLAMs are moved out into the field closer to the end-customers as was done in Germany and the competitors want to offer competitive capacities); physical unbundling would require that an competitor would need to move its own active DSLAMs into each outdoor location of the incumbent (instead of before just in the CO); this is why the introduction of vectoring resulted in a re-centralization of DSL link ownership back to the incumbent (as they were willing and able to convert most DSLAMs to vectoring) hence the switch to bitstream access by the competitors. This worked OK even tough the competitors now lack the capability to differentiate themselves from the incumbent by using different technology.

*) My interpretation is that many customers do not care all to much as long as internet access simply works (fast enough, compared to what they know and expect) robustly and reliably.


> 
> 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 Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:

> Q0) How much DSL is in the EU?

I can add a datapoint here from Sweden. Telia which is the incument 
started shutting down the copper network 5+ years ago, and have announced 
that it'll be completely gone by 2026.

Alternatives are fiber and/or wireless services.

Other countries have incumbents with other strategies, and there's plenty 
talk about much higher speed DSL and keep the last-few-hundred-meters 
copper cables for residential access.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL

[Pedro Tumusok]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 3:58 PM Mikael Abrahamsson via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Oct 2023, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
>
> > Q0) How much DSL is in the EU?
>
> I can add a datapoint here from Sweden. Telia which is the incument
> started shutting down the copper network 5+ years ago, and have announced
> that it'll be completely gone by 2026.
>
> Alternatives are fiber and/or wireless services.
>
> Other countries have incumbents with other strategies, and there's plenty
> talk about much higher speed DSL and keep the last-few-hundred-meters
> copper cables for residential access.
>
>
Basically the same for Norway, Telenor the incumbant here, got the same
timeline, end of 2025 is the goal here.
They had the goal of 2022, but NKOM (similar to FCC) said that was to fast
and it got extended.

FWA is the main push to replace DSL if there is no fiber or Cable available
already.

-- 
Best regards / Mvh
Jan Pedro Tumusok

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1512 bytes --]