[NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Tue Oct 10 02:13:35 EDT 2023

Hi Bob.

On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>Hi Sebastian,
>
>The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that now define a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal overbuilder is not a market maker.

[SM] Sure, a small outfit is essentially forced to use off the shelf components, though they might innovate a bit on the software side, like libreqos. But for one of the biggest current challenges, getting fiber out to all residences/businesses is that really an issue?

>
>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.

[SM] In a dark fiber model, this will not matter too much, no? For a lighted fiber approach 20-30 years require 2-4 technology generations which seems hard to predict... then again the biggest cost is likely the fiber access network, the active tech might by financable out of the cash flow?

>
>Investors aren't govt. bond holders and investor owned companies can take more risk. If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose. If it works, they win. Big difference.

[SM] Building that fiber plant seems like a pretty save bet to me, allowing for longterm financing. Interestigly over here some insurrances got into the FTTH build-out game, obviously considering it a viable long term investment, though population density is higher here than in the US likely affecting cost and amortisation periods...

>
>⁣Bob
>
>On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural
>>separation model in comm infrastructure.
>>
>>[SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the
>>future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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. But today
>>it's PON at best which implies a communal decision process vs
>>individual one.
>>
>>[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 (depending on where the passive splitters are located).
>>b) Structural 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 converting a structural PON to AON likely requires
>>putting new fibers into the ground.
>>
>>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
>>decade (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 though... micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in the
>>field (lower up front cost* AND less potential for regulatory
>>intervention**) while the macro-economic perspective makes PtP more
>>attractive (offering more flexibility over the expected life time of
>>multiple decades).
>>
>>
>>
>>*) One big item, 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.g. the cost
>>of the individual fibers (not that this would stop bean-counter types
>>to still minimize the number of fiber cables...).
>>
>>**) With PtP the potential exists that a regulator (likely not the FCC)
>>could force an ISP to offer dark-fibers to end customers at wholesale
>>prices, with PtMP the ISP having build out likely will stay in control
>>of the active tech in each segment (might be forced to offer bitstream
>>access***) so potential competitors will not be able to offer
>>better/faster technology on the shared fiber. 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 offer
>>XGS-PON on the same segment, but I think this is a rather theoretical
>>construct unlikely to happen quantitatively...
>>
>>***) Not only control of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely
>>means a larger wholesale price as well.
>>
>>
>>> Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades
>>and once done, are slow to change.
>>
>>	[SM] LUS already offer symmetric 10G links... they do not seem to be
>>lagging behind, the main criticism seems to be that they are somewhat
>>more expensive than the 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... 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 smaller ISPs in an attempt to drive
>>those smaller ones out of the market, after which prices likely
>>increase again).
>>
>>
>>> The decision process time vs tech timelines exacerbate this. Somebody
>>has to predict the future - great for investors & speculators, not so
>>for regulators looking backwards.
>>
>>	[SM] 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-brained schemes like NFTs/crypto currencies and the like?
>>
>>> Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither
>>LUS nor Glasgow solved that.
>>
>>	[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.
>>
>>
>>Regards
>>	Sebastian
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>> Hi Bob,
>>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>>>> Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U.S. muni
>>network started around 1994. It looks like a one and done type
>>investment. Their offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now
>>seems to have fallen behind for the last few decades.
>>>>> https://www.glasgowepb.com/internet-packages/
>>>>> https://communitynets.org/content/birth-community-broadband-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 period 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 gear revenue will likely
>>>> not generate surplus. The challenge is to decide when to upgrade...
>>>> My preferred model however is not necessarily 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 upstream links to
>>>> those locations to be able to offer services. In the beginning it
>>>> makes probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/XGSPON bit
>>stream
>>>> access to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expect to serve
>>only
>>>> a small portion of customers in such an IX, but that is pure
>>>> speculation.... The real idea is to keep those things that 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 lines to
>>try
>>>> to create a larger pool of competing ISPs to light up the fiber
>>>> infrastructure... That is I am fine with a market solution, if we
>>can
>>>> assure the market to be big enough to actually deliver on its
>>>> promises.
>>>>> LUS is similar if this article is to be believed.
>>https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/
>>>> 	[SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard... as the
>>>> offers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e.g. 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 additional fees and stuff... (in Germany prices for
>>>> end-customers typically are "all inclusive prices", the amount of
>>>> VAT/tax is shown singled out in the receipts, but the number we
>>>> operate on is typically the final price, but then we have almost no
>>>> local taxes that could apply).
>>>>> 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. https://www.lusfiber.com/net-neutrality
>>>> 	[SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would try
>>them
>>>> out, then I could 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....(absurd
>>>> in that they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for
>>the
>>>> actual cost).
>>>>> This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving
>>too quickly for municipal approaches.
>>>> 	[SM] That might well be true. 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.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, 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
>>multiplexingThe FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a
>>most heinous act against the public interest.”
>>>>>>> - 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
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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.