[NNagain] The non-death of DSL

Tue Oct 10 04:24:51 EDT 2023

The Markeley Group in Boston charges $2500 to $5000 per month to lease a dark fiber strand into their colo. The labor to install is on the wanna be isp. One has to provide the colo switches and pay Colo fees, peering fees and transit fees. The only long lived parts are the fiber, patch panels and building which are not sufficient by themselves to operate a modern ISP. Switch tech is upgrading on silicon mfg cycles. Similar with optics though the MTBF is less than silicon, hence pluggables. And that's just interconnections and ignores compute.

https://www.markleygroup.com/

Then there are OSP pedestals and actives, optical amps e.g. via doped fiber,  too. Operating an optical OSP requires a skilled labor force.

I don't see a muni funding model that works. Maybe in 20 or 30 years but not today. I wish it were different. I think it is nice as an ideal but the economics don't seem to work. If they did, we would see the munis everywhere already. It's been proposed for over two decades now and nothing substantial has been built.

Bob

On Oct 9, 2023, 11:13 PM, at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de> wrote:
>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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/nnagain/attachments/20231010/5cd8e31c/attachment-0001.html>