From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [134.84.196.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A54653CB37 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 14:27:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4STfbC15NPz9xZ2b for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 19:27:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at umn.edu Received: from mta-p7.oit.umn.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta-p7.oit.umn.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s3Ecfyo5xDSu for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:27:51 -0600 (CST) Received: from mail-io1-f71.google.com (mail-io1-f71.google.com [209.85.166.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mta-p7.oit.umn.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4STfbB6PWsz9xZ2W for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:27:50 -0600 (CST) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4STfbB6PWsz9xZ2W DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mta-p7.oit.umn.edu 4STfbB6PWsz9xZ2W Received: by mail-io1-f71.google.com with SMTP id ca18e2360f4ac-7872be95468so483050739f.1 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 11:27:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umn.edu; s=google; t=1699903670; x=1700508470; darn=lists.bufferbloat.net; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:subject:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jApJpZHI1Fwm0tUHBExbkp2onUHrH9cLRc8JLoogAGE=; b=dTKGBxKSzJPAxEfdvc7eg72IdfhNg7mDFmjn/c7GbumVsVQefIMmXjlJdVRuC5L5qq uqWXXgLPQ05nXWZTY7vucJhqhinuzyl+/jYYYAa0DOlmnKU6nI3Uvi3Gq+fVgu2nxKdo qq6kU3pRKHOf1JvZ12LHxC1+fvSRx9z1ADOD7YvqkuANxkiULZj6IT9SW+3FySBsg9Qk tklkPSFUq8M6LOAA0EZS0yd6KkLZQWedh63MFEBUHHs/8BdGYZyjD0aY+8pCFGJsU9ho wnfefovYDRNJJpLyFyJso6A4/MfquGiXDlJZ0hjxPFllEePUw17fkfPdxWsSv6dwTzcU vLEQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1699903670; x=1700508470; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:subject:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jApJpZHI1Fwm0tUHBExbkp2onUHrH9cLRc8JLoogAGE=; b=FO5Eb3dTjEXJMVMpTVHpBX/9Mdud1IhQ3Ko9o5Ae/NT1naYRsSPIXVc/yW4oEtpIZt JV+EdBQXPcb9N8Ct10QpYJgM80/jPuHkQMbzFFAMzjMKcmnrGEn5bizkl5HD+d6wjoRB seavkF6fMwBd+WbuRUr9zmw1ACbRZtqMpmkaUe+NZ9e0SqIqLwdQwy9bP2JOW4NTGZdS rzSj+DHwf8Qdf/hma4Rr6DVe5qZ4TGfdBwVU51fRjug82w42Ezk1r4qQyzFH/iwRwccN ASVsMfa1pFTgrIEJTPeLSQy7hM0nOjx5O61WrmsyDTEsVJVEeDrBe0M9N9UXR/evhrSx LTrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz72aUJ3N5kNrqgUHZITHdpwOqpWNtmnPiN8NMMDvKXpJ73erZQ YX5gCveaQzwyE9lUMcOxNvDuIUBJub88vg0JBQh53w9AmQqumPmJTgZzHOK6xsOFk8ZJZ+pVNbT CQCLLngmHwZy/pnrvyyGYN5rigLBdY0ZXDdNySVW314GAfVfzao2uQ/OjCpxssSK68zdfy+YLsj 01gF5RBY06 X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:334f:b0:795:fa0:c15 with SMTP id c15-20020a056602334f00b007950fa00c15mr8546814ioz.6.1699903670037; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 11:27:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGuAY9zpLmBi3j9FDy7k//cw4XrSQvw+LftOlT36LvzV9mcvMxgsD+jnw1tWrw1GnAkpCi4Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:334f:b0:795:fa0:c15 with SMTP id c15-20020a056602334f00b007950fa00c15mr8546801ioz.6.1699903669589; Mon, 13 Nov 2023 11:27:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from math-vinh511.math.umn.edu (math-vinh511.math.umn.edu. [160.94.6.216]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b61-20020a0295c3000000b004530696334esm1861510jai.4.2023.11.13.11.27.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Nov 2023 11:27:49 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 13:27:48 -0600 (CST) From: odlyzko@umn.edu X-X-Sender: odlyzko@math-vinh511.math.umn.edu To: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [NNagain] The rise and fall of the 90's telecom bubble X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2023 19:27:51 -0000 Dave Taht's question about all the redundant fiber that was put down in the telecom bubble is a very interesting one. It would be nice if some folks on the list could provide some solid information, even if only for one large carrier. My impression, from communications with various folks, is that much of that fiber from around 2000 was never lit. The reason is that better fiber came on the market. However, what was used (at least in some cases, again, this is something I would love to get real data on) was that some of the empty conduits that were put down then were used to shoot the new generations of fiber through. (It was quite common for carriers to put down 4 conduits, and only pull fiber through one of them, leaving the other 3 for later use.) Concerning the Doug O'Laughlin post that Dave cites, it is very good. For more on the myth of "Internet doubling every 100 days," my paper "Bubbles, gullibility, and other challenges for economics, psychology, sociology, and information sciences" published in First Monday in Sept. 2010, https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3142/2603 But O'Laughlin is too hard on Global Crossing, for example, when he says it "was essentially a fundraising scheme looking for a problem." Global Crossing had a real business plan, it was the first transatlantic cable that was not built by consortia of incumbent telcos, and it planned to take advantage of the rising demand for transmission by offering capacity to new players, who would otherwise be gouged by incumbents. (It did get into accounting shenanigans later on, as competition arose, but that was later.) What is most interesting is that their business plan was based on an assumption of demand about doubling each year (which is what was taking place), not doubling every 100 days. (This I learned when I was consulted on some of the litigation after the telecom crash, but by now the information is publicly available.) What killed them is that their assumption that it would be difficult for others to get the (special undersea) fiber, the cable-laying ships, the permits, ..., turned out to be wrong, and so a slew of competitors, inspired by the myth of astronomical growth rates, came on the scene. (Global Crossing's expansion into terrestrial fiber networks was also a major contributor.) One of the astounding observations is that while Global Crossing was assuming 100% annual growth rate in traffic, the industry as a whole (as well as the press, the FCC, and so on) were talking of 1,000% growth rates. And the only observer that I was able to find who noted this in print was George Gilder, who drew the wrong conclusion from this! (Details are in the paper cited above.) Andrew P.S. Some interesting materials from telecom bubble era are available at https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/~odlyzko/isources/index.html