[NNagain] The non-death of DSL
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com
Sat Oct 7 20:00:58 EDT 2023
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 at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Nnagain mailing list
> > > Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >
More information about the Nnagain
mailing list