From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C9373B2A4 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 20:13:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.32] (unknown [98.37.180.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5771D1B258; Mon, 9 Oct 2023 17:13:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 5771D1B258 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1696896798; bh=gYYVei9ozeixkFUTA2TITwpWU3NYqrYQBZE/DaYObnA=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:CC:From; b=H4H5iXWzI5Q8ZoBU1Lrxa51dnRnlPBQCmzrnPUzDfiHiINa6cAhcb29TjBTDsIOPv 85ANcSTd3VakZ5qn4vvZv0SUWfJRFNOtBKlfA1955KfEt8EesFBSVNLzvcoYcaYJw/ CCnggezmrUwiA3aRyKGM+WLSu1/tE0KEQhzb2MsY= In-Reply-To: References: <18b0c0fca5a.df21b356967361.3801960253537018542@phillywisper.net> <2EB085CD-44EB-4664-9436-6077A106151A@gmx.de> <8c3ecc6b-272a-414e-86b3-a56a029ec70c@rjmcmahon.com> <88139a6c8a4220851d25a9cfa1185159@rjmcmahon.com> <5e89d58588cc0509e61b0696a22d4b6c@rjmcmahon.com> X-Referenced-Uid: 00011417567702d5 Thread-Topic: Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL User-Agent: Android X-Is-Generated-Message-Id: true MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----0UOWO38IAP6W1MXLIQ1F76NE0JEI85" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Robert McMahon Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2023 17:13:18 -0700 To: Sebastian Moeller CC: Dave Taht via Nnagain Message-ID: Subject: Re: [NNagain] The non-death of DSL X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:13:19 -0000 ------0UOWO38IAP6W1MXLIQ1F76NE0JEI85 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Sebastian, The NRE per chip starts at $100M=2E It's multiplr semiconduc= tors that now define a networks and data centers capabilitied=2E A small mu= nicipal overbuilder is not a market maker=2E So yes, an overbuilder that c= an'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 t= hat's typically the life of the municipal bonds=2E Investors aren't govt= =2E bond holders and investor owned companies can take more risk=2E If low = latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose=2E If it works, t= hey win=2E Big difference=2E =E2=81=A3Bob On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12= :40 AM, Sebastian Moeller wrote: >Hi Bob, > >> On Oct 8= , 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon wrote: >> >> Yeah,= I get it=2E I think we're just too early for a structural >separation mode= l in comm infrastructure=2E > >[SM] I see one reason why we should not wait= , and that is the >future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployme= nt=2E=2E=2E > > >> >> I think when we get to mix & match DSP/optics and po= int to point >fiber in the OSPs, as done in data centers, it may change=2E = But today >it's PON at best which implies a communal decision process vs >i= ndividual one=2E > >[SM] There are IMHO two components to the AON (Point to= >MultiPoint/PtMP)/PON (Point to Point/PtP) debate: >a) PONs are cheaper to= operate, as they require less power (on the ISP >side) and space (dependin= g on where the passive splitters are located)=2E >b) Structural PONs with s= plitters out in the field (to realize space >saving in the CO) are less fle= xible, one can always operate a PtMP >plant as PON, but converting a struct= ural PON to AON likely requires >putting new fibers into the ground=2E > >T= he first part is something I am not too concerned about, the coming >FTTH a= ccess network is going to operate for decades, so I could not >care less ab= out what active technology is going to be used in the next >decade (I assum= e that ISPs tryto keep the same tech operational for ~ a >decade, but for P= ON that might be too pessimistic), the second part is >different though=2E= =2E=2E micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in the >field (lower up fr= ont cost* AND less potential for regulatory >intervention**) while the macr= o-economic perspective makes PtP more >attractive (offering more flexibilit= y over the expected life time of >multiple decades)=2E > > > >*) One big it= em, the cost for actually deploying the fiber to is not >all that sensitive= , if you put fiber into the ground the traditional >way, typically the cost= of the earth works dominates over e=2Eg=2E the cost >of the individual fib= ers (not that this would stop bean-counter types >to still minimize the num= ber of fiber cables=2E=2E=2E)=2E > >**) With PtP the potential exists that = a regulator (likely not the FCC) >could force an ISP to offer dark-fibers t= o end customers at wholesale >prices, with PtMP the ISP having build out li= kely will stay in control >of the active tech in each segment (might be for= ced to offer bitstream >access***) so potential competitors will not be abl= e to offer >better/faster technology on the shared fiber=2E That is some of= the PONs >are backward compatible and in theory on the same PON tree one I= SP >might be operating GPON while another ISP might theoreticallu offer >XG= S-PON on the same segment, but I think this is a rather theoretical >constr= uct unlikely to happen quantitatively=2E=2E=2E > >***) Not only control of = the tech, but offering bitstream access likely >means a larger wholesale pr= ice as well=2E > > >> Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, ca= n take decades >and once done, are slow to change=2E > > [SM] LUS already o= ffer symmetric 10G links=2E=2E=2E they do not seem to be >lagging behind, t= he main criticism seems to be that they are somewhat >more expensive than t= he big ISPs, which is not all that surprising >given that they will not be = able to leverage scale effects all that >much simply by being small=2E=2E= =2E Also a small ISP likely can not afford a >price war with a much larger = company (that can afford to serve below >cost in areas it competes with sma= ller ISPs in an attempt to drive >those smaller ones out of the market, aft= er which prices likely >increase again)=2E > > >> The decision process time= vs tech timelines exacerbate this=2E Somebody >has to predict the future -= great for investors & speculators, not so >for regulators looking backward= s=2E > > [SM] I am not convinced that investors/speculators actually do a m= uch >better job predicting the future, just look at how much VC is wadted o= n >hare-brained schemes like NFTs/crypto currencies and the like? > >> Als= o, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither >LUS nor G= lasgow solved that=2E > > [SM] But do they need to solve that? Would it not= be enough to simply >keep offering something that in their service area is= considered good >enough by the customers? Whether they do or do not, I can= not tell=2E > > >Regards > Sebastian > > >> >> Bob >>> Hi Bob, >>>> On Oc= t 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon >wrote: >>>> Hi = Sebastian, >>>> Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U=2ES=2E= muni >network started around 1994=2E It looks like a one and done type >in= vestment=2E Their offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now >seem= s to have fallen behind for the last few decades=2E >>>> https://www=2Eglas= gowepb=2Ecom/internet-packages/ >>>> https://communitynets=2Eorg/content/bi= rth-community-broadband-video >>> [SM] Looks like they are using DOCSIS an= d 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 pe= riod 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 g= ear revenue will likely >>> not generate surplus=2E The challenge is to dec= ide when to upgrade=2E=2E=2E >>> My preferred model however is not necessar= ily having a communal ISP >>> that sells internet access services (I am not= against that), but >have >>> a communal built-out of the access network an= d centralize the lines >>> (preferably fiber) in a few large enough local I= Xs, so internet >access >>> providers only need to bring their head-ends an= d upstream links to >>> those locations to be able to offer services=2E In = the beginning it >>> makes probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/X= GSPON bit >stream >>> access to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expe= ct to serve >only >>> a small portion of customers in such an IX, but that = is pure >>> speculation=2E=2E=2E=2E The real idea is to keep those things t= hat 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 li= nes to >try >>> to create a larger pool of competing ISPs to light up the f= iber >>> infrastructure=2E=2E=2E That is I am fine with a market solution, = if we >can >>> assure the market to be big enough to actually deliver on it= s >>> promises=2E >>>> LUS is similar if this article is to be believed=2E = >https://thecurrentla=2Ecom/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/ >>> [= SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard=2E=2E=2E as the >>> o= ffers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e=2Eg=2E 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 a= dditional fees and stuff=2E=2E=2E (in Germany prices for >>> end-customers = typically are "all inclusive prices", the amount of >>> VAT/tax is shown si= ngled out in the receipts, but the number we >>> operate on is typically th= e final price, but then we have almost no >>> local taxes that could apply)= =2E >>>> The LUS NN site says there is no congestion on their fiber (GPON) = >so they don't need AQM or other congestion mgmt mechanisms which I find >s= uspect=2E https://www=2Elusfiber=2Ecom/net-neutrality >>> [SM] Actually in= triguing, would I live in their area I would try >them >>> out, then I coul= d report on the details here :) >>> Browsing their documentation I am not a= big fan of their volume >limits >>> though, I consider these to be absurd = measures of control=2E=2E=2E=2E(absurd >>> in that they are too loosely cou= pled with the relevant measure for >the >>> actual cost)=2E >>>> This may d= emonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving >too quickly for m= unicipal approaches=2E >>> [SM] That might well be true=2E I have no insig= ht any more on how >this >>> affects commercial ISPs in the US either (I on= ly tried two anyway >>> sonic and charter) >>>> Bob >>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>= >> The U=2ES=2E of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates >>>>= > investment into essential comm infrastructure=2E It seems to go the >>>>>= other way, regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the >>>>> co= mmons=2E >>>>> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild=2E They used wireless and= went to >>>>> contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has be= en >>>>> removed=2E The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract >ca= rriage=2E >>>>> And they are upgrading today=2E >>>>> The tech companies pr= oviding content & services are doing fine too >and >>>>> have enough power = to work things out with the ISPs directly=2E >>>>> The undeserved areas do = need support=2E The BEAD monies may help=2E I >>>>> think these areas shoul= dn't be relegated to DSL=2E >>>>> Bob >>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Seb= astian Moeller >wrote: >>>>>> Hi Bob, >>>>>> On 8 Octob= er 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Everybody abandoned my local loop=2E Twisted pa= ir from multiple >>>>>>> decades ago into antiquated, windowless COs with p= unch blocks, >>>>>>> with no space nor latency advantage for colocated cont= ent & >>>>>>> compute, seems to have killed it off=2E >>>>>> [SM] Indeed, t= hroughput for DSL is inversely proportional to loop >>>>>> length, so provi= ding 'acceptable' capacity requires sufficiently >>>>>> short wire runs fro= m DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving >>>>>> DSLAMs closer to the e= nd users=2E=2E=2E which in a densely populated >area >>>>>> works well, but= in a less densely populated area becomes costly >>>>>> fast=2E And doing s= o will only make sense if you get enough >customers >>>>>> on such an 'outd= oor DSLAM' so might work for the first to built >out, >>>>>> but becomes pr= ohibitively unattractive for other ISP later=2E >However >>>>>> terminating= the loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in >the >>>>>> COs=2E=2E= =2E not that anybody over here moved much compute into >these=2E=2E=2E >>>>= >> (there exist too many COs to make that an attractive proposition >in >>>= >>> spite of all the hype about moving compute to the edge)=2E As is a >few= >>>>>> well connected data centers for compute seem to work well >enough= =2E=2E=2E >>>>>> I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop cop= per >with >>>>>> just a promise of maintenance=2E >>>>>> [SM] A clear sign = of regulatory failure to me, maintenance of the >>>>>> copper plant inherit= ed from Bell should never have been left to >the >>>>>> ISPs to decide abou= t=2E=2E=2E >>>>>> The whole CLEC open the loop to competitive access seems = to have >>>>>> failed per costs, antiquated technology, limited colocation,= an >>>>>> outdated waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI would have won >o= ver >>>>>> Cat 5), and market reasons=2E The early ISPs didn't collocate, t= hey >>>>>> bought T1s and E1s and connected the TDM to statistical >multipl= exingThe FCC has stated that =E2=80=9Crigging or slanting the news is a >mo= st heinous act against the public interest=2E=E2=80=9D >>>>>> - no major in= vestment there either=2E >>>>>>> The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to= contract carriage and >>>>>>> wireless largely because of the burdens of t= itle II per >regulators >>>>>>> not being able to create an investment into= the OSPs=2E The 2000 >>>>>>> blow up was kinda real=2E >>>>>> [SM] Again, = I see no fault in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs >of >>>>>> the hook on = maintaining their copper plant or replace it with >>>>>> FTTH=2E=2E=2E >>>>= >>> She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in >>>>>>>= the right place=2E That's like trying to share a flashlight=2E She >has >>= >>>>> access to the FCC technology group full of capable engineers=2E >They= >>>>>>> should have told her to install some structured wire, place more >= >>>>>> APs, set the carrier and turn down the power=2E >>>>>> [SM] I rather= read this more as an attempt to built a report with >>>>>> the audience ov= er a shared experience and less as a problem >report >>>>>> ;) >>>>>> My wi= fe works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no >>>>>> issues= =2E My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad >dedicating >>>>>> a f= ront end module for her distance learning needs=2E I think her >>>>>> story= to justify title II regulation is a bit made up=2E >>>>>> [SM] Hmm, while = covid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I >>>>>> agree, I see no goo= d argument for keeping essential >infrastructure >>>>>> like internet acces= s in private hands without appropriate >oversight=2E >>>>>> Especially give= n the numbers for braodband choice for customers, >>>>>> clearly the market= is not going to solve the issues at hand=2E >>>>>>> Also, communications h= ave been essential back before the rural >>>>>>> free delivery of mail in 1= 896=2E Nothing new here other than >>>>>>> hyperbole to justify a 5 member = commission acting as the single >>>>>>> federal regulator over 140M househo= lds and 33M businesses, >almost >>>>>>> none of which have any idea about t= he complexities of the >>>>>>> internet=2E >>>>>> [SM] But the access netwo= rk is quite different than the >internet's >>>>>> core, so not being expert= s on the core seems acceptable, no? And >>>>>> even 5 members is clearly su= perior to no oversight at all? >>>>>> I'm not buying it and don't want to h= and the keys to the FCC who >>>>>> couldn't protect journalism nor privacy= =2E Maybe start there, >looking >>>>>> at what they didn't do versus blamin= g contract carriage for a >>>>>> distraction? >>>>>> [SM] I can speak to th= e FCC as regulatory agency, but over here >IMHO >>>>>> the national regulat= ory agency does a decent job arbitrating >between >>>>>> the interests of b= oth sides=2E >>>>> >https://about=2Eusps=2Ecom/who/profile/history/rural-fr= ee-delivery=2Ehtm#:~:text=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20op= erating%20in%2029%20states=2E >>>>>> Bob >>>>>> My understanding, though I = am not 100% certain, is that the baby >>>>>> bells >>>>>> lobbied to have t= he CLEC equal access provisions revoked/gutted=2E >>>>>> Before this, the t= elephone companies were required to provide >access >>>>>> to the "last mil= e" of the copper lines and the switches at >wholesale >>>>>> costs=2E Once = the equal access provisions were removed, the >telephone >>>>>> companies s= tarted charging the small phone and DSL providers >close >>>>>> to >>>>>> t= he retail price for access=2E The CLEC DSL providers could not >stay >>>>>>= in >>>>>> business when they charged a customer $35 / month for Internet >= >>>>> service >>>>>> while the telephone company charged the DSL ISP $35 / = month for >>>>>> access=2E >>>>>> ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 D= ave Taht via Nnagain >wrote >>>>>> --- >>>>>> I have a lot to unpack from t= his: >>>>>> https://docs=2Efcc=2Egov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1=2Epdf = >>>>>> the first two on my mind from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first >open= >>>>>> internet policy" and "Competitiveness" As best as I recall, (and >>= >>>> please correct me), this led essentially to the departure of all >the = >>>>>> 3rd party DSL providers from the field=2E I had found something >>>>= >> referencing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but >I >>>= >>> do >>>>>> clearly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in t= he >>>>>> early >>>>>> 00s, and how few you can buy from now=2E Obviously t= here are many >>>>>> other >>>>>> possible root causes=2E >>>>>> DSL contin= ued 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 re= lated >>>>>> order? >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Oct 30: >>>>>> >https://netdevconf=2Ei= nfo/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof=2Ehtml >>>>>> Dave T=C3=A4ht CS= O, LibreQos >>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>= >>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat= =2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>> Nnagain mai= ling list >>>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>>> https://lists=2Eb= ufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>>>> ------------------------- >>>>> Nna= gain mailing list >>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet >>>>> https://lis= ts=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain >>>>> _____________________________= __________________ >>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>> Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferb= loat=2Enet >>>>> https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain ------0UOWO38IAP6W1MXLIQ1F76NE0JEI85 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Sebastian= ,

The NRE per chip starts at $100M=2E It's = multiplr semiconductors that now define a networks and data centers capabil= itied=2E A small municipal overbuilder is not a market maker=2E

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=2E

Investors aren't = govt=2E bond holders and investor owned companies can take more risk=2E If = low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose=2E If it work= s, they win=2E Big difference=2E

Bob
On = Oct 9, 2023, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx=2Ede> wrote:
Hi Bob,
On Oct 8, 2023, at = 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon=2Ecom> wrote:

Yeah, I = get it=2E I think we're just too early for a structural separation model in= comm infrastructure=2E

[SM] I see one reason why we sh= ould not wait, and that is the future-proofness of the eventually reached F= TTH-deployment=2E=2E=2E



I think when we get to mix & match DSP/optics and point= to point fiber in the OSPs, as done in data centers, it may change=2E But = today it's PON at best which implies a communal decision process vs individ= ual one=2E

[SM] There are IMHO two components to the AO= N (Point to MultiPoint/PtMP)/PON (Point to Point/PtP) debate:
a) PONs ar= e cheaper to operate, as they require less power (on the ISP side) and spac= e (depending on where the passive splitters are located)=2E
b) Structura= l 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 converti= ng a structural PON to AON likely requires putting new fibers into the grou= nd=2E

The first part is something I am not too concerned about, the = coming FTTH access network is going to operate for decades, so I could not = care less about what active technology is going to be used in the next deca= de (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 t= hough=2E=2E=2E micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in the field (lowe= r up front cost* AND less potential for regulatory intervention**) while th= e macro-economic perspective makes PtP more attractive (offering more flexi= bility over the expected life time of multiple decades)=2E



*= ) One big item, the cost for actually deploying the fiber to is not all tha= t sensitive, if you put fiber into the ground the traditional way, typicall= y the cost of the earth works dominates over e=2Eg=2E the cost of the indiv= idual fibers (not that this would stop bean-counter types to still minimize= the number of fiber cables=2E=2E=2E)=2E

**) With PtP the potential = exists that a regulator (likely not the FCC) could force an ISP to offer da= rk-fibers to end customers at wholesale prices, with PtMP the ISP having bu= ild out likely will stay in control of the active tech in each segment (mig= ht be forced to offer bitstream access***) so potential competitors will no= t be able to offer better/faster technology on the shared fiber=2E That is = some of the PONs are backward compatible and in theory on the same PON tree= one ISP might be operating GPON while another ISP might theoreticallu offe= r XGS-PON on the same segment, but I think this is a rather theoretical con= struct unlikely to happen quantitatively=2E=2E=2E

***) Not only cont= rol of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely means a larger wholes= ale price as well=2E


Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades = and once done, are slow to change=2E

[SM] LUS already = offer symmetric 10G links=2E=2E=2E they do not seem to be lagging behind, t= he main criticism seems to be that they are somewhat more expensive than th= e big ISPs, which is not all that surprising given that they will not be ab= le to leverage scale effects all that much simply by being small=2E=2E=2E A= lso a small ISP likely can not afford a price war with a much larger compan= y (that can afford to serve below cost in areas it competes with smaller IS= Ps in an attempt to drive those smaller ones out of the market, after which= prices likely increase again)=2E


The decision process time vs tech timelines exacerbate = this=2E Somebody has to predict the future - great for investors & spec= ulators, not so for regulators looking backwards=2E

[S= M] 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-brain= ed schemes like NFTs/crypto currencies and the like?

Also, engineering & market cadence = matching is critical and neither LUS nor Glasgow solved that=2E

[SM] But do they need to solve that? Would it not be enough to si= mply keep offering something that in their service area is considered good = enough by the customers? Whether they do or do not, I can not tell=2E

Regards
Sebastian



Bob
= Hi Bob,
On Oct 8, 202= 3, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon=2Ecom> wrote:
Hi Seba= stian,
Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U=2ES=2E muni= network started around 1994=2E It looks like a one and done type investmen= t=2E Their offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now seems to hav= e fallen behind for the last few decades=2E
https://www=2Eglasgowepb=2Ecom/internet-p= ackages/
https://communitynets=2Eorg/content/birth-community-b= roadband-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 pe= riod 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 ge= ar revenue will likely
not generate surplus=2E The challenge is to deci= de when to upgrade=2E=2E=2E
My preferred model however is not necessari= ly 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 u= pstream links to
those locations to be able to offer services=2E In the= beginning it
makes probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/XGSP= ON bit stream
access to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expect t= o serve only
a small portion of customers in such an IX, but that is pu= re
speculation=2E=2E=2E=2E The real idea is to keep those things that w= ill result
in a natural monopoly to form in communal hands (that alread= y manage
other such monopoly infrastructure anyway) and then try to use= the
fact that there is no local 800lb Gorilla ISP owning most lines to= try
to create a larger pool of competing ISPs to light up the fiber infrastructure=2E=2E=2E That is I am fine with a market solution, if we c= an
assure the market to be big enough to actually deliver on its
pr= omises=2E
LUS is simil= ar if this article is to be believed=2E https://thecurrentla=2Ecom/2023= /column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/
[SM] The article= notices that comparing things is hard=2E=2E=2E as the
offers differ co= nsiderably from what alternate ISPs offer (e=2Eg=2E LUS
offers symmetri= c capacity for down- and upload) and the number
compared seems to be th= e advertised price, which IIRC in the US is
considerably smaller than w= hat one happens to actually pay month per
month due to additional fees = and stuff=2E=2E=2E (in Germany prices for
end-customers typically are "= all inclusive prices", the amount of
VAT/tax is shown singled out in th= e receipts, but the number we
operate on is typically the final price, = but then we have almost no
local taxes that could apply)=2E
The LUS NN site says there is no = congestion on their fiber (GPON) so they don't need AQM or other congestion= mgmt mechanisms which I find suspect=2E https://www=2Elusfiber=2Ecom/net-neutrality
<= /blockquote> [SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would = try them
out, then I could report on the details here :)
Browsing t= heir documentation I am not a big fan of their volume limits
though, I = consider these to be absurd measures of control=2E=2E=2E=2E(absurd
in t= hat they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for the
actu= al cost)=2E
This may d= emonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving too quickly fo= r municipal approaches=2E
[SM] That might well be true=2E= I have no insight any more on how this
affects commercial ISPs in the = US either (I only tried two anyway
sonic and charter)
Bob
Hi Sebastian,
The U=2ES=2E of late isn't very good wi= th regulatory that motivates
investment into essential comm infrastruct= ure=2E It seems to go the
other way, regulatory triggers under investme= nt, a tragedy of the
commons=2E
The RBOCs eventually did overbuild= =2E They used wireless and went to
contract carriage, and special acces= s rate regulation has been
removed=2E The cable cos did HFC and have al= ways been contract carriage=2E
And they are upgrading today=2E
The = tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too and
= have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly=2E
The unde= served areas do need support=2E The BEAD monies may help=2E I
think the= se areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL=2E
Bob
On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:= 38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx=2Ede> wrote:
Hi Bob,
On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 = CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet> w= rote:
Everybody abandon= ed my local loop=2E Twisted pair from multiple
decades ago into antiqua= ted, windowless COs with punch blocks,
with no space nor latency advant= age for colocated content &
compute, seems to have killed it off=2E=
[SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inversely proportional= to loop
length, so providing 'acceptable' capacity requires sufficient= ly
short wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving
= DSLAMs closer to the end users=2E=2E=2E which in a densely populated area<= br> works well, but in a less densely populated area becomes costly
fas= t=2E And doing so will only make sense if you get enough customers
on s= uch an 'outdoor DSLAM' so might work for the first to built out,
but be= comes prohibitively unattractive for other ISP later=2E However
termina= ting the loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in the
COs=2E=2E= =2E not that anybody over here moved much compute into these=2E=2E=2E
(= there exist too many COs to make that an attractive proposition in
spit= e of all the hype about moving compute to the edge)=2E As is a few
well= connected data centers for compute seem to work well enough=2E=2E=2E
I= suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with
just = a promise of maintenance=2E
[SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to = me, maintenance of the
copper plant inherited from Bell should never ha= ve been left to the
ISPs to decide about=2E=2E=2E
The whole CLEC op= en the loop to competitive access seems to have
failed per costs, antiq= uated technology, limited colocation, an
outdated waveguide (otherwise = things like CDDI would have won over
Cat 5), and market reasons=2E The = early ISPs didn't collocate, they
bought T1s and E1s and connected the = TDM to statistical multiplexingThe FCC has stated that =E2=80=9Crigging or = slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest=2E=E2= =80=9D
- no major investment there either=2E
The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to = contract carriage and
wireless largely because of the burdens of title = II per regulators
not being able to create an investment into the OSPs= =2E The 2000
blow up was kinda real=2E
[SM] Again, I s= ee no fault in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs of
the hook on maintai= ning their copper plant or replace it with
FTTH=2E=2E=2E
She starts out by complaining about try= ing to place her WiFi in
the right place=2E That's like trying to share= a flashlight=2E She has
access to the FCC technology group full of cap= able engineers=2E They
should have told her to install some structured = wire, place more
APs, set the carrier and turn down the power=2E
[SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report wit= h
the audience over a shared experience and less as a problem report ;)
My wife works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no issues=2E My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating a front end module for her distance learning needs=2E I think her
sto= ry to justify title II regulation is a bit made up=2E
[SM] Hmm, while c= ovid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I
agree, I see no good ar= gument for keeping essential infrastructure
like internet access in pri= vate hands without appropriate oversight=2E
Especially given the number= s for braodband choice for customers,
clearly the market is not going t= o solve the issues at hand=2E
Also, communications have been essential back before the rural
fre= e delivery of mail in 1896=2E Nothing new here other than
hyperbole to = justify a 5 member commission acting as the single
federal regulator ov= er 140M households and 33M businesses, almost
none of which have any id= ea about the complexities of the
internet=2E
[SM] But = the access network is quite different than the internet's
core, so not = being experts on the core seems acceptable, no? And
even 5 members is c= learly superior to no oversight at all?
I'm not buying it and don't wan= t to hand the keys to the FCC who
couldn't protect journalism nor priva= cy=2E Maybe start there, looking
at what they didn't do versus blaming = contract carriage for a
distraction?
[SM] I can speak to the FCC as= regulatory agency, but over here IMHO
the national regulatory agency d= oes a decent job arbitrating between
the interests of both sides=2E
=
https://about=2Eusps=2Ecom/who/profile/his= tory/rural-free-delivery=2Ehtm#:~:text=3DOn%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20ru= ral,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states=2E
Bob
My understanding, though I am not 100% cer= tain, is that the baby
bells
lobbied to have the CLEC equal access = provisions revoked/gutted=2E
Before this, the telephone companies were = required to provide access
to the "last mile" of the copper lines and t= he switches at wholesale
costs=2E Once the equal access provisions were= removed, the telephone
companies started charging the small phone and = DSL providers close
to
the retail price for access=2E The CLEC DSL = providers could not stay
in
business when they charged a customer $= 35 / month for Internet
service
while the telephone company charged= the DSL ISP $35 / month for
access=2E
---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:= 22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote
---
I have a lot to unpack = from this:
https://docs=2Efcc=2Egov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1=2Ep= df
the first two on my mind from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first o= pen
internet policy" and "Competitiveness" As best as I recall, (and please correct me), this led essentially to the departure of all the
= 3rd party DSL providers from the field=2E I had found something
referen= cing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but I
do
cle= arly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in the
early
= 00s, and how few you can buy from now=2E Obviously there are many
other=
possible root causes=2E
DSL continued to get better and evolve, bu= t it definately suffers
from
many reports of degraded copper qualit= y, 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 o= f or not of an FCC related
order?
--
Oct 30:
http= s://netdevconf=2Einfo/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof=2Ehtml Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
-------------------------
Nnagain ma= iling list
Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet
https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/= listinfo/nnagain
-------------------------
Nnagain mailing list=
Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet
https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/n= nagain
-------------------------
Nnagain mailing l= ist
Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet
https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinf= o/nnagain


Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists=2Ebufferbl= oat=2Enet
https://lists=2Ebufferbloat=2Enet/listinfo/nnagain

------0UOWO38IAP6W1MXLIQ1F76NE0JEI85--