<html><head></head><body style="zoom: 0%;"><div dir="auto">Hi Sebastian,<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">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.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">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.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto">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.<br><br></div>
<div dir="auto"><!-- tmjah_g_1299s -->Bob<!-- tmjah_g_1299e --></div>
<div class="gmail_quote" >On Oct 9, 2023, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <<a href="mailto:moeller0@gmx.de" target="_blank">moeller0@gmx.de</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="blue">Hi Bob,<br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:<br> <br> Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural separation model in comm infrastructure.<br></blockquote><br>[SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment...<br><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> <br> 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.<br></blockquote><br>[SM] There are IMHO two components to the AON (Point to MultiPoint/PtMP)/PON (Point to Point/PtP) debate:<br>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).<br>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.<br><br>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).<br><br><br><br>*) 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...).<br><br>**) 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...<br><br>***) Not only control of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely means a larger wholesale price as well.<br><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades and once done, are slow to change.<br></blockquote><br> [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).<br><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> 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.<br></blockquote><br> [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? <br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither LUS nor Glasgow solved that.<br></blockquote><br> [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.<br><br><br>Regards<br> Sebastian<br><br><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"> <br> Bob<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Bob,<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:<br> Hi Sebastian,<br> 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.<br> <a href="https://www.glasgowepb.com/internet-packages">https://www.glasgowepb.com/internet-packages</a>/<br> <a href="https://communitynets.org/content/birth-community-broadband-video">https://communitynets.org/content/birth-community-broadband-video</a><br></blockquote> [SM] Looks like they are using DOCSIS and are just about to go fiber;<br> not totally unexpected, it takes awhile to amortize the cost of say a<br> CMTS to go DOCSIS and only after that period you make some profit, so<br> many ISPs will be tempted to operate the active gear a bit longer<br> longer after break even, as with new active gear revenue will likely<br> not generate surplus. The challenge is to decide when to upgrade...<br> My preferred model however is not necessarily having a communal ISP<br> that sells internet access services (I am not against that), but have<br> a communal built-out of the access network and centralize the lines<br> (preferably fiber) in a few large enough local IXs, so internet access<br> providers only need to bring their head-ends and upstream links to<br> those locations to be able to offer services. In the beginning it<br> makes probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/XGSPON bit stream<br> access to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expect to serve only<br> a small portion of customers in such an IX, but that is pure<br> speculation.... The real idea is to keep those things that will result<br> in a natural monopoly to form in communal hands (that already manage<br> other such monopoly infrastructure anyway) and then try to use the<br> fact that there is no local 800lb Gorilla ISP owning most lines to try<br> to create a larger pool of competing ISPs to light up the fiber<br> infrastructure... That is I am fine with a market solution, if we can<br> assure the market to be big enough to actually deliver on its<br> promises.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> LUS is similar if this article is to be believed. <a href="https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge">https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge</a>/<br></blockquote> [SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard... as the<br> offers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e.g. LUS<br> offers symmetric capacity for down- and upload) and the number<br> compared seems to be the advertised price, which IIRC in the US is<br> considerably smaller than what one happens to actually pay month per<br> month due to additional fees and stuff... (in Germany prices for<br> end-customers typically are "all inclusive prices", the amount of<br> VAT/tax is shown singled out in the receipts, but the number we<br> operate on is typically the final price, but then we have almost no<br> local taxes that could apply).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> 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. <a href="https://www.lusfiber.com/net-neutrality">https://www.lusfiber.com/net-neutrality</a><br></blockquote> [SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would try them<br> out, then I could report on the details here :)<br> Browsing their documentation I am not a big fan of their volume limits<br> though, I consider these to be absurd measures of control....(absurd<br> in that they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for the<br> actual cost).<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving too quickly for municipal approaches.<br></blockquote> [SM] That might well be true. I have no insight any more on how this<br> affects commercial ISPs in the US either (I only tried two anyway<br> sonic and charter)<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #8ae234; padding-left: 1ex;"> Bob<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #fcaf3e; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Sebastian,<br> The U.S. of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates<br> investment into essential comm infrastructure. It seems to go the<br> other way, regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the<br> commons.<br> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to<br> contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been<br> removed. The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract carriage.<br> And they are upgrading today.<br> The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too and<br> have enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly.<br> The undeserved areas do need support. The BEAD monies may help. I<br> think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL.<br> Bob<br> On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moeller0@gmx.de> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Bob,<br> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain<br> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> Everybody abandoned my local loop. Twisted pair from multiple<br> decades ago into antiquated, windowless COs with punch blocks,<br> with no space nor latency advantage for colocated content &<br> compute, seems to have killed it off.<br></blockquote> [SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inversely proportional to loop<br> length, so providing 'acceptable' capacity requires sufficiently<br> short wire runs from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving<br> DSLAMs closer to the end users... which in a densely populated area<br> works well, but in a less densely populated area becomes costly<br> fast. And doing so will only make sense if you get enough customers<br> on such an 'outdoor DSLAM' so might work for the first to built out,<br> but becomes prohibitively unattractive for other ISP later. However<br> terminating the loops in the field clears up lots of spaces in the<br> COs... not that anybody over here moved much compute into these...<br> (there exist too many COs to make that an attractive proposition in<br> spite of all the hype about moving compute to the edge). As is a few<br> well connected data centers for compute seem to work well enough...<br> I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with<br> just a promise of maintenance.<br> [SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to me, maintenance of the<br> copper plant inherited from Bell should never have been left to the<br> ISPs to decide about...<br> The whole CLEC open the loop to competitive access seems to have<br> failed per costs, antiquated technology, limited colocation, an<br> outdated waveguide (otherwise things like CDDI would have won over<br> Cat 5), and market reasons. The early ISPs didn't collocate, they<br> 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.”<br> - no major investment there either.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to contract carriage and<br> wireless largely because of the burdens of title II per regulators<br> not being able to create an investment into the OSPs. The 2000<br> blow up was kinda real.<br></blockquote> [SM] Again, I see no fault in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs of<br> the hook on maintaining their copper plant or replace it with<br> FTTH...<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in<br> the right place. That's like trying to share a flashlight. She has<br> access to the FCC technology group full of capable engineers. They<br> should have told her to install some structured wire, place more<br> APs, set the carrier and turn down the power.<br></blockquote> [SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with<br> the audience over a shared experience and less as a problem report<br> ;)<br> My wife works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no<br> issues. My daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating<br> a front end module for her distance learning needs. I think her<br> story to justify title II regulation is a bit made up.<br> [SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I<br> agree, I see no good argument for keeping essential infrastructure<br> like internet access in private hands without appropriate oversight.<br> Especially given the numbers for braodband choice for customers,<br> clearly the market is not going to solve the issues at hand.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ccc; padding-left: 1ex;"> Also, communications have been essential back before the rural<br> free delivery of mail in 1896. Nothing new here other than<br> hyperbole to justify a 5 member commission acting as the single<br> federal regulator over 140M households and 33M businesses, almost<br> none of which have any idea about the complexities of the<br> internet.<br></blockquote> [SM] But the access network is quite different than the internet's<br> core, so not being experts on the core seems acceptable, no? And<br> even 5 members is clearly superior to no oversight at all?<br> I'm not buying it and don't want to hand the keys to the FCC who<br> couldn't protect journalism nor privacy. Maybe start there, looking<br> at what they didn't do versus blaming contract carriage for a<br> distraction?<br> [SM] I can speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO<br> the national regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between<br> the interests of both sides.<br></blockquote> <a href="https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states">https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states</a>.<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #e9b96e; padding-left: 1ex;"> Bob<br> My understanding, though I am not 100% certain, is that the baby<br> bells<br> lobbied to have the CLEC equal access provisions revoked/gutted.<br> Before this, the telephone companies were required to provide access<br> to the "last mile" of the copper lines and the switches at wholesale<br> costs. Once the equal access provisions were removed, the telephone<br> companies started charging the small phone and DSL providers close<br> to<br> the retail price for access. The CLEC DSL providers could not stay<br> in<br> business when they charged a customer $35 / month for Internet<br> service<br> while the telephone company charged the DSL ISP $35 / month for<br> access.<br> ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote<br> ---<br> I have a lot to unpack from this:<br> <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf</a><br> the first two on my mind from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first open<br> internet policy" and "Competitiveness" As best as I recall, (and<br> please correct me), this led essentially to the departure of all the<br> 3rd party DSL providers from the field. I had found something<br> referencing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but I<br> do<br> clearly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in the<br> early<br> 00s, and how few you can buy from now. Obviously there are many<br> other<br> possible root causes.<br> DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it definately suffers<br> from<br> many reports of degraded copper quality, but does an estimate exist<br> for how much working DSL is left?<br> Q0) How much DSL is in the EU?<br> Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA?<br> Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?)<br> Did competition in DSL vanish because of or not of an FCC related<br> order?<br> --<br> Oct 30:<br> <a href="https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html">https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html</a><br> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos<br> -------------------------<br> Nnagain mailing list<br> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<br> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br> -------------------------<br> Nnagain mailing list<br> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<br> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br></blockquote> -------------------------<br> Nnagain mailing list<br> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<br> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br><hr><br> Nnagain mailing list<br> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<br> <a href="https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain">https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain</a><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>