[LibreQoS] [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

David Lang david at lang.hm
Tue Mar 28 16:37:42 EDT 2023


I'm due to get it to my area Q2 (or so). we're a suburb outside LA, but 100k+ 
people so not tiny.

David Lang

On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, rjmcmahon wrote:

> There are municipal broadband projects. Most are in rural areas partially 
> funded by the federal government via the USDA. Glasgow started a few decades 
> ago. Similar to LUS in Lafayette, LA. https://www.usda.gov/broadband
> Rural areas get a lot of federal money for things, a la the farm bill which 
> also pays for food stamps instituted as part of the New Deal after the Great 
> Depression.
> https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/
> None of this is really relevant to the vast majority of our urban populations 
> that get broadband from investor-owned companies. These companies don't 
> receive federal subsidies though sometimes they get access to municipal 
> revenue bonds when doing city infrastructures.
> Bob
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-mitchell-79078b5 and the like
>> are doing a pretty good job (given the circumstances) here in the US.
>> At least, that’s my understanding of his work.
>> All the best,
>> Frank
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 [2]
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 [3]
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>> On 28 March 2023 at 7:47:33 PM, rjmcmahon (rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com)
>> wrote:
>>> Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this
>>> (structural separation) right.
>>> Pre-coaxial cable & contract carriage, the FCC licensed spectrum to
>>> the
>>> major media companies and placed a news obligation on them for these
>>> OTA
>>> rights. A society can't run a democracy well without quality and
>>> factual
>>> information to the constituents. Sadly, contract carriage got rid of
>>> that news as a public service obligation as predicted by Eli Noam.
>>> http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html Hence we get
>>> January
>>> 6th and an insurrection.
>>> It takes a staff of 300 to produce 30 minutes of news three times a
>>> day.
>>> The co-axial franchise agreements per each city traded this
>>> obligation
>>> for a community access channel and a small studio, and annual
>>> franchise
>>> fees. History has shown this is insufficient for a city to provide
>>> quality news to its citizens. Community access channels failed
>>> miserably.
>>> Another requirement was two cables so there would be "competition"
>>> in
>>> the coaxial offerings. This rarely happened because of natural
>>> monopoly
>>> both in the last mile and in negotiating broadcast rights (mostly
>>> for
>>> sports.) There is only one broadcast rights winner, e.g. NBC for the
>>> Olympics, and only one last mile winner. That's been proven
>>> empirically
>>> in the U.S.
>>> Now cities are dependent on those franchise fees for their budgets.
>>> And
>>> the cable cos rolled up to a national level. So it's mostly the FCC
>>> that
>>> regulates all of this where they care more about Janet Jackson's
>>> breast
>>> than providing accurate news to help a democracy function well.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy
>>> It gets worse as people are moving to unicast networks for their
>>> "news."
>>> But we're really not getting news at all, we're gravitating to
>>> emotional
>>> validations per our dysfunctions. Facebook et al happily provide
>>> this
>>> because it sells more ads. And then the major equipment providers
>>> claim
>>> they're doing great engineering because they can carry "AI loads!!"
>>> and
>>> their stock goes up in value. This means ads & news feeds that
>>> trigger
>>> dopamine hits for addicts are driving the money flows. Which is a
>>> sad
>>> theme for undereducated populations.
>>> And ChatGPT is not the answer for our lack of education and a public
>>> obligation to support those educations, which includes addiction
>>> recovery programs, and the ability to think critically for
>>> ourselves.
>>> Bob
>>> Here is an old (2014) post on Stockholm to my class "textbook":
>> https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html
>>> [1]
>>> Stockholm: 19 years of municipal broadband success [1]
>>> The Stokab report should be required reading for all local
>>> government
>>> officials. Stockholm is one of the top Internet cities in the
>>> worl...
>>> cis471.blogspot.com [1]
>>> -------------------------
>>> From: Starlink <starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
>>> Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 2:11 PM
>>> To: David Lang <david at lang.hm>
>>> Cc: dan <dandenson at gmail.com>; Frantisek Borsik
>>> <frantisek.borsik at gmail.com>; libreqos
>>> <libreqos at lists.bufferbloat.net>; Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net>; rjmcmahon
>>> <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com>;
>>> bloat <bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure
>>> w/Comcast chat
>>> Hi David,
>>> On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote:
>>> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital
>>  communications infrastructure as life support critical.
>>>> Well, let's keep things in perspective, unlike power, water
>>  (fresh and waste), and often gas, communications infrastructure is
>> mostly not critical yet. But I agree that we are clearly on a path in
>> that direction, so it is time to look at that from a different
>> perspective.
>>>> Personally, I am a big fan of putting the access network into
>>  communal hands, as these guys already do a decent job with other
>> critical infrastructure (see list above, plus roads) and I see a PtP
>> fiber access network terminating in some CO-like locations a viable
>> way to allow ISPs to compete in the internet service field all the
>> while using the communally build access network for a few. IIRC this
>> is how Amsterdam organized its FTTH roll-out. Just as POTS wiring has
>> beed essentially unchanged for decades, I estimate that current fiber
>> access lines would also last for decades requiring no active component
>> changes in the field, making them candidates for communal management.
>> (With all my love for communal ownership and maintenance, these
>> typically are not very nimble and hence best when we talk about life
>> times of decades).
>>> This is happening in some places (the town where I live is doing
>>  such a rollout), but the incumbant ISPs are fighting this and in many
>> states have gotten laws created that prohibit towns from building such
>> systems.
>> A resistance that in the current system is understandable*...
>> btw, my point is not wanting to get rid of ISPs, I really just think
>> that the access network is more of a natural monopoly and if we want
>> actual ISP competition, the access network is the wrong place to
>> implement it... as it is unlikely that we will see multiple ISPs
>> running independent fibers to all/most dwelling units... There are two
>> ways I see to address this structural problem:
>> a) require ISPs to rent the access links to their competitors for
>> "reasonable" prices
>> b) as I proposed have some non-ISP entity build and maintain the
>> access network
>> None of these is terribly attractive to current ISPs, but we already
>> see how the economically more attractive PON approach throws a spanner
>> into a), on a PON the competitors might get bitstream access, but will
>> not be able to "light up" the fiber any way they see fit (as would be
>> possible in a PtP deployment, at least in theory). My subjective
>> preference is b) as I mentioned before, as I think that would offer a
>> level playing field for ISPs to compete doing what they do best, offer
>> internet access service while not pushing the cost of the access
>> network build-out to all-fiber onto the ISPs. This would allow a
>> fairer, less revenue driven approach to select which areas to convert
>> to FTTH first....
>> However this is pretty much orthogonal to Bob's idea, as I understand
>> it, as this subthread really is only about getting houses hooked up to
>> the internet and ignores his proposal how to do the in-house network
>> design in a future-proof way...
>> Regards
>> Sebastian
>> *) I am not saying such resistance is nice or the right thing, just
>> that I can see why it is happening.
>>> David Lang
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!vFtTwFdYBTFjrJCFqT0rp0o2dtaz2m-dskeRLX2dIW_Pujge6ZU8eOIxtkN_spTDlqyyzClrVbEMFFbvL3NlUgIHOg$
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1] http://cis471.blogspot.com
>> [2] tel:+421919416714
>> [3] tel:+420775230885

More information about the LibreQoS mailing list