[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 technology, limited colocation, an outdated waveguide (otherwise things 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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
 > >  > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
 > >  >
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Nnagain mailing list
 > > Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
 > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
 >