[NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Sun Oct 8 12:37:19 EDT 2023

Hi Sebastian,

The U.S. of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates investment into essential comm infrastructure. It seems to go the other way, regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the commons.

The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been removed. The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract carriage. And they are upgrading today.

The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too and have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly. 

The undeserved areas do need support. The BEAD monies may help. I think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL.

Bob

On Oct 8, 2023, 2:38 AM, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
><nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> 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. 
>
>[SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inversely proportional to loop
>length, so providing  'acceptable' capacity requires sufficiently short
>wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving DSLAMs
>closer to the end users... which in a densely populated area works
>well, but in a less densely populated area becomes costly fast. And
>doing so will only make sense if you get enough customers on such an
>'outdoor DSLAM' so might work for the first to built out, but becomes
>prohibitively unattractive for other ISP later. However terminating the
>loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in the COs... not that
>anybody over here moved much compute into these... (there exist too
>many COs to make that an attractive proposition in spite of all the
>hype about moving compute to the edge). As is a few well connected data
>centers for compute seem to work well enough...
>
>I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with just
>a promise of maintenance. 
>
>[SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to me, maintenance of the
>copper plant inherited from Bell should never have been left to the
>ISPs to decide about... 
>
>
>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per costs, antiquated technology, limited colocation, an outdated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.
>
>[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...
>
>
>
>>
>>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. 
>
>[SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with 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. 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.
>
>[SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I agree,
>I see no good argument for keeping essential infrastructure like
>internet access in private hands without appropriate oversight.
>Especially given the numbers for braodband choice for customers,
>clearly the market is not going to solve the issues at hand.
>
>
>>
>>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.
>
>[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 clearly superior to no oversight at all?
>
>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?
>
>[SM] I can speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO
>the national regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between
>the interests of both sides.
>
>
>>
>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>Nnagain mailing list
>>Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
>-- 
>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231008/6ec07271/attachment.html>