https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-mitchell-79078b5 and the like are doing a pretty good job (given the circumstances) here in the US. At least, that’s my understanding of his work. All the best, Frank Frantisek (Frank) Borsik https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 Skype: casioa5302ca frantisek.borsik@gmail.com On 28 March 2023 at 7:47:33 PM, rjmcmahon (rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com) wrote: > Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this > (structural separation) right. > > Pre-coaxial cable & contract carriage, the FCC licensed spectrum to the > major media companies and placed a news obligation on them for these OTA > rights. A society can't run a democracy well without quality and factual > information to the constituents. Sadly, contract carriage got rid of > that news as a public service obligation as predicted by Eli Noam. > http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/citi/citinoam11.html Hence we get January > 6th and an insurrection. > > It takes a staff of 300 to produce 30 minutes of news three times a day. > The co-axial franchise agreements per each city traded this obligation > for a community access channel and a small studio, and annual franchise > fees. History has shown this is insufficient for a city to provide > quality news to its citizens. Community access channels failed > miserably. > > Another requirement was two cables so there would be "competition" in > the coaxial offerings. This rarely happened because of natural monopoly > both in the last mile and in negotiating broadcast rights (mostly for > sports.) There is only one broadcast rights winner, e.g. NBC for the > Olympics, and only one last mile winner. That's been proven empirically > in the U.S. > > Now cities are dependent on those franchise fees for their budgets. And > the cable cos rolled up to a national level. So it's mostly the FCC that > regulates all of this where they care more about Janet Jackson's breast > than providing accurate news to help a democracy function well. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy > > It gets worse as people are moving to unicast networks for their "news." > But we're really not getting news at all, we're gravitating to emotional > validations per our dysfunctions. Facebook et al happily provide this > because it sells more ads. And then the major equipment providers claim > they're doing great engineering because they can carry "AI loads!!" and > their stock goes up in value. This means ads & news feeds that trigger > dopamine hits for addicts are driving the money flows. Which is a sad > theme for undereducated populations. > > And ChatGPT is not the answer for our lack of education and a public > obligation to support those educations, which includes addiction > recovery programs, and the ability to think critically for ourselves. > > Bob > > Here is an old (2014) post on Stockholm to my class "textbook": > > https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html > > > [1] > Stockholm: 19 years of municipal broadband success [1] > The Stokab report should be required reading for all local government > officials. Stockholm is one of the top Internet cities in the worl... > > cis471.blogspot.com > > ------------------------- > > From: Starlink on behalf of > Sebastian Moeller via Starlink > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 2:11 PM > To: David Lang > Cc: dan ; Frantisek Borsik > ; libreqos > ; Dave Taht via Starlink > ; rjmcmahon ; > bloat > Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure > w/Comcast chat > > Hi David, > > On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote: > > The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital > > communications infrastructure as life support critical. > > > Well, let's keep things in perspective, unlike power, water > > (fresh and waste), and often gas, communications infrastructure is > mostly not critical yet. But I agree that we are clearly on a path in > that direction, so it is time to look at that from a different > perspective. > > Personally, I am a big fan of putting the access network into > > communal hands, as these guys already do a decent job with other > critical infrastructure (see list above, plus roads) and I see a PtP > fiber access network terminating in some CO-like locations a viable > way to allow ISPs to compete in the internet service field all the > while using the communally build access network for a few. IIRC this > is how Amsterdam organized its FTTH roll-out. Just as POTS wiring has > beed essentially unchanged for decades, I estimate that current fiber > access lines would also last for decades requiring no active component > changes in the field, making them candidates for communal management. > (With all my love for communal ownership and maintenance, these > typically are not very nimble and hence best when we talk about life > times of decades). > > > This is happening in some places (the town where I live is doing > > such a rollout), but the incumbant ISPs are fighting this and in many > states have gotten laws created that prohibit towns from building such > systems. > > A resistance that in the current system is understandable*... > btw, my point is not wanting to get rid of ISPs, I really just think > that the access network is more of a natural monopoly and if we want > actual ISP competition, the access network is the wrong place to > implement it... as it is unlikely that we will see multiple ISPs > running independent fibers to all/most dwelling units... There are two > ways I see to address this structural problem: > a) require ISPs to rent the access links to their competitors for > "reasonable" prices > b) as I proposed have some non-ISP entity build and maintain the > access network > > None of these is terribly attractive to current ISPs, but we already > see how the economically more attractive PON approach throws a spanner > into a), on a PON the competitors might get bitstream access, but will > not be able to "light up" the fiber any way they see fit (as would be > possible in a PtP deployment, at least in theory). My subjective > preference is b) as I mentioned before, as I think that would offer a > level playing field for ISPs to compete doing what they do best, offer > internet access service while not pushing the cost of the access > network build-out to all-fiber onto the ISPs. This would allow a > fairer, less revenue driven approach to select which areas to convert > to FTTH first.... > > However this is pretty much orthogonal to Bob's idea, as I understand > it, as this subthread really is only about getting houses hooked up to > the internet and ignores his proposal how to do the in-house network > design in a future-proof way... > > Regards > Sebastian > > *) I am not saying such resistance is nice or the right thing, just > that I can see why it is happening. > > > David Lang > > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!vFtTwFdYBTFjrJCFqT0rp0o2dtaz2m-dskeRLX2dIW_Pujge6ZU8eOIxtkN_spTDlqyyzClrVbEMFFbvL3NlUgIHOg$ > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html > >