From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 345FF3CB40; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 10:54:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id i7so19697740ybt.0; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 07:54:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680101692; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=E2nYZQvmhEszgWhZy1f9lWIpFBc8fxZg5/f+Y8wUAUg=; b=nzIiTEzOAhlyLhUgxkgcbwDO8garqszVKjEHcdyEOVtDa1YvGEi1PlN06sONgcd1mF +BgvIrpLOWmGyTBsc8iYkzHTTLYA3yFdNSUFiIDNIA/ZcPy+lAXHKv52BQfvQrdI3RwN Sd4+UkwUvPyx5fIwOl+WcoDNNNO4Kght9YsVnswy5PC+qUDEgeXhTrOB9B3aFG03WDou IjYiyc4aVsTiH4yM3wy47MT0NHCpiD2GOPGQPKum2PtbSBmgXJwBHE2sForZUCGT/jzN VpwoGTyMc0PzRJsfpUTTV009lY80yuDUoMTzSrff50hZsr9q8xwWW5t1S4/WTlJIi3Kk uM1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680101692; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=E2nYZQvmhEszgWhZy1f9lWIpFBc8fxZg5/f+Y8wUAUg=; b=3gRylkY3NMWRpYUT7kTgnnXKBPQeZM6gXQ2NimOVMjukhMO0tzWGuDLQ2MDt1ak2Kl e4UZOfc3XpqC+mlc7n3o6JAgNmY17xDnNx4z3zMi69oM1C5iXlpLE7rUvuuZSxYcKqw9 fGcKqF2SOsNYmccUXzFIWuBCcMW6rE1UKjAIutskTG5ZzzEfbuurKu/l3FXpEAkoAtJp 6dhfwTQppjsBieplernhFVq1UGZ/ultZDhb4e4Iv14CsRjr7y7IVQJJdHke155hBCtil zyG0eUhWWTBo1xFN2B4Bez2qKkbJTQbgQ9zQE/667nJoIz6JOt9bBQMH6ji5aTK9kYGX YN8A== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9e6HVD4Hxcr0kE0HcAt6So5zD6zU+zGi8IPb6ZuCz5NpWCds0/n A4aigMuhLztJFuS3wJybdDz26XlO6beTaht2N2A= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350Y9du9wM8/9hjM8P6OmD06/jrox6h2AaP/2h2LnhbahJUwfORtAIXA01ABNEnKqCfEFgNl+yIfn+7/ClEcLTJw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:1083:b0:b67:d295:d614 with SMTP id v3-20020a056902108300b00b67d295d614mr10345755ybu.12.1680101692286; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 07:54:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1d6c10c9a692bb3f2869fb1b40fa449a@rjmcmahon.com> <2885829.1679221616@dyas> <20230321001019.GA4531@sunf68.rd.bbc.co.uk> <4295238B-FA57-49B6-B57B-78FFB2603B90@gmx.de> <8301258b8fffa18bd14279bff043dd03@rjmcmahon.com> <43bcbc338aecb44a1bef49489ab6f9c8@rjmcmahon.com> <60e70b637df76234639780ab08f25d82@rjmcmahon.com> <9edd011a1a6615470b34e0837896a15f@rjmcmahon.com> <6EB62755-EF23-44BA-B2FF-66FAC708653D@gmx.de> <6qnq34os-3qss-s4q7-s286-2s49q890q920@ynat.uz> <27aea5070eeb1b1535f3e75489295feb@rjmcmahon.com> <08526EAC-7EA3-4BFA-A231-B2935E09C8AC@gmx.de> <716ECAAD-E2EE-4647-9E73-D60BF8BF9C1E@searls.com> In-Reply-To: From: dan Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 08:54:41 -0600 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: Doc Searls , Dave Taht via Starlink , Dave Collier-Brown , libreqos , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e2c2805f80b28a4" Subject: Re: [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:54:53 -0000 --0000000000008e2c2805f80b28a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > Always a mistake to generalize from a sample of one, but in my case I > have four, because I live in four places. So I like to think that, to som= e > degree, I represent a kind of market demand. > > > > All those places=E2=80=94Santa Barbara (CA), New York (NY), Bloomington= (IN), > and San Marino (CA)=E2=80=94are served by cable monopolies (Cox, Spectrum= , > Comcast/Xfinity) that provide (or at least claim) 1 Gb service... > downstream of course. One (Cox) provides 36 Mb of upstream capacity. The > other two provide just 10 Mb. Because of that, residents have no option = to > do much work, or to store large amounts of data, in clouds (to mention ju= st > one grace of upstream capacity). The market is rigged for consumption, no= t > production, on the TV model. Same as it has been since commercial activit= y > began to explode in 1995, when John Perry Barlow wrote Death From Above. > It's killer. Please read it: > https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/203356.203358. > > I have been citing that piece left and right lately. > The problem is that this 'FiWi' model or the municipal backhaul model FORCES this model. The reason you are stuck with those providers is because there is a monopoly designed into the system. Without competition, 10Mbps is good enough. There is no way for consumers to 'vote' with their money because they can't pick another product or provider. > I think the smartest thing any city can do to start with, is to > establish a good ole-fashioned internet exchange point there, require > those providing service in the city to interconnect, > > > > See what you think. > > > > For me, the promise of fiber is a huge attraction to living and working > here. And I am not alone. > > > > This makes the municipality the internet provider. Even if you get to pick who does the upstream on the bits, it's ultimately the muni to repair the lines, handle the CPE, and handle the switching infrastructure in the exchange. So an ISP run by a city council? a council who got elected to 'Karen' away about how cell towers give them 5G poisoning? Disaster. Take any city listed about and look at the water and waste facilities. The pockets of the city that are not served or are poorly served. The Flint Michigans with one source of water that is contaminated. how those services just stop, homes beyond are on septic tanks and hauled water. When you've destroyed all the ISPs, whos going to bring services to those beyond the core? The county? not sure if you've ever dealt with county officials... This entirely removes all choice. The entire job of the ISP is the last mile, there is no point in selling bits to individual users at the exchange. Take that away and the city itself is necessarily the ISP. The 'exchange' model is fundamentally flawed because there's no money in it. The city is going to have to raise taxes or charge for the last mile at the same rates as the ISPs do, except more because government inefficient and inflexible. The upstream connectivity is the simplest and cheapest part of being an ISP. The solution to having monopolies control internet service isn't to create a different monopoly to control internet service. The obvious solution is to foster competition. Anywhere you overlay cable companies with fiber BOTH companies remain and compete against each other and the cable company increases upload speeds. If fiber was so naturally superior, the cable companies would be erased. I have MSP customers in multiple markets with competing techs and it's VERY nice to be able to get fiber and cable or terragraph and cable to a business for resilience. I cannot do that on single product dominated markets. The 'exchange' model above doesn't do it because of that single point of failure of the municipal fiber. --0000000000008e2c2805f80b28a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> Always a mistake to generalize from a sample of one, but in my case I = have four, because I live in four places. So I like to think that, to some = degree, I represent a kind of market demand.
>
> All those places=E2=80=94Santa Barbara (CA), New York (NY), Bloomingto= n (IN), and San Marino (CA)=E2=80=94are served by cable monopolies (Cox, Sp= ectrum, Comcast/Xfinity) that provide (or at least claim) 1 Gb service... d= ownstream of course. One (Cox) provides 36 Mb of upstream capacity. The oth= er two provide just 10 Mb.=C2=A0 Because of that, residents have no option = to do much work, or to store large amounts of data, in clouds (to mention j= ust one grace of upstream capacity). The market is rigged for consumption, = not production, on the TV model. Same as it has been since commercial activ= ity began to explode in 1995, when John Perry Barlow wrote Death From Above= . It's killer. Please read it: https://dl.acm.or= g/doi/pdf/10.1145/203356.203358.

I have been citing that piece left and right lately.
<= br>
The problem is that this 'FiWi' model or the municipal backh= aul model FORCES this model.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The reason you are stuck with thos= e providers is because there is a monopoly designed into the system.=C2=A0 = Without competition, 10Mbps is good enough.=C2=A0 There is no way for consu= mers to 'vote' with their money because they can't pick another= product or provider.


I think the smartest thing any city can do to start with, is to
establish a good ole-fashioned internet exchange point there, require
those providing service in the city to interconnect,
>
> See what you think.
>
> For me, the promise of fiber is a huge attraction to living and workin= g here. And I am not alone.
>


This makes the municipality the internet = provider.=C2=A0 Even if you get to pick who does the upstream on the bits, = it's ultimately the muni to repair the lines, handle the CPE, and handl= e the switching infrastructure in the exchange.=C2=A0 So an ISP run by a ci= ty council? a council who got elected to 'Karen' away about how cel= l towers give them 5G poisoning?=C2=A0 Disaster.=C2=A0=C2=A0

Take an= y city listed about and look at the water and waste facilities.=C2=A0 The p= ockets of the city that are not served or are poorly served.=C2=A0 The Flin= t=C2=A0Michigans with one source of water that is contaminated.=C2=A0 how t= hose services just stop, homes beyond are on septic tanks and hauled water.= =C2=A0 When you've destroyed all the ISPs, whos going to bring services= to those beyond the core?=C2=A0 The county?=C2=A0 not sure if you've e= ver dealt with county officials...=C2=A0

This entirely removes all c= hoice.=C2=A0 The entire job of the ISP is the last mile, there is no point = in selling bits to individual users at the exchange.=C2=A0 Take that away a= nd the city itself is necessarily the ISP.=C2=A0 The 'exchange' mod= el is fundamentally flawed because there's no money in it.=C2=A0 The ci= ty is going to have to raise taxes or charge for the last mile at the same = rates as the ISPs do, except more because government inefficient and inflex= ible.=C2=A0 =C2=A0The upstream connectivity is the simplest and cheapest pa= rt of being an ISP.

The solution to having monopolies control intern= et service isn't to create a different monopoly to control internet ser= vice.=C2=A0=C2=A0

The obvious solution is to foster competition.=C2= =A0 Anywhere you overlay cable companies with fiber BOTH companies remain a= nd compete against each other and the cable company increases upload speeds= .=C2=A0 If fiber was so naturally superior, the cable companies would be er= ased.=C2=A0 =C2=A0I have MSP customers in multiple markets with competing t= echs and it's VERY nice to be able to get fiber and cable or terragraph= and cable to a business for resilience.=C2=A0 I cannot do that on single p= roduct dominated markets.=C2=A0 The 'exchange' model above doesn= 9;t do it because of that single point of failure of the municipal fiber.=C2=A0
--0000000000008e2c2805f80b28a4--