From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE5B3CB37; Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:11:26 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1679865078; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=ytNz2yymXbEUS+jvokBC3vNwo5XBxWIYCHtNzzJM0lw=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Smzbh0/8Lp7+nBRynd0fkpcHVDuCs01QLtzqF6zd1CfmA8zbKL2sQ5ALUS1hN57dJ 3byzjCmQ2mCfeWD8HlvwBMvZ0TMcTLw297BhnU4CDZKlRS5zx/UdKPDvNyVfPSWFZV I28tBxeyh4dmmhmhHOdIcVTUiACaBuRlRhlryGKy0TiQtzMJrRDRzWazLKCQAwBOYA aMZbJWKax3s7d94xSo8eNgCz21OLdhA0vRlsJHoggVZUF01rB9kx1eBXaKnoCoAg5G CpgXKFUKmOd2QPckNCNSjnLBUhSmlOySVeX6d4w9xYpxpvme1aS0AKQOKiDo8XvWlr TDsah+2vlA2ww== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([77.0.231.0]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MCsUC-1pXhwM380O-008rHh; Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:11:18 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.2\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: <6qnq34os-3qss-s4q7-s286-2s49q890q920@ynat.uz> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 23:11:17 +0200 Cc: rjmcmahon , Dave Taht via Starlink , dan , Frantisek Borsik , brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk, libreqos , bloat Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1d6c10c9a692bb3f2869fb1b40fa449a@rjmcmahon.com> <569691b3e7dfc57bbf98c4fc168fc6cf@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> To: David Lang X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.2) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:ws/x+e8geRIEH+Sh36LbPFdZ0woGsKL/ckG4seJtjrAS3IB4gZ2 qBqDqGYovZb1pUfbrZ80OU63AZYbUFW2uNYS8j7gkqCe8CO3VcnjVISSVL9isEnQqqDGn22 Ig+yRJwYuuTNPxsH2ucfeY6nVrSq0ALhvzV/n8tPjtod4mlkWgwbs/HlKSBx4SZdj9ANSTH V0Ib4EToHeza6K/kttB6g== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:Pw12X6vUkWM=;guIrsmujsflWaWbj8cG56MAl3Ke V6tLVOdWG1L5pUwK5c3heYk8/aSxvvJiCx8ZEIJODy3hQsREvOpyRzO4S6s7ErlexPbMHhFVd nnfi4Tl35TqpOYrs2gQ2P/a+JBtUdU3Cq9lHPjRqlFUW+g+psF4UxQsE8pmmpDYiN8JIIgt5o sGDtixeItR/77Xu84XYOJjEHZbf6WGUmDbJqtJ4UVh0wJP+YAcKW6x846DkRQAh0Zqf947/2K TUHhjTdXne3kIlUND5AnIAbwVY3vKAzSxTtDFDG+TYzbayRyndp2RjsK146aDTc4ahmcwnx2K 6KdbX6YKpHDTiGQBWUpLjiw8ENniaEQrP3ngnX3NEfhFNy87u5tOJZ/TE8S2B1EpQJiElhV0D oOnlIjjXRaVoOZkTMeg1QWgtFlBU8srQ8Ilqatc1LbDQ1b8aD0GGNGlUU0EKdeKJSuEIRB73V 4sXdnTY4Ud7vgDJInOPRrx4uV/+8cVVy0+hLs7pnBH7yQObbSpba8HC3u0E0LbABRFC2WqS2q 3XqYWkypxdioTkGV1MruU9mgOs/EW65l71iKxGaa1lHmywMtzbSgD2ICZ+Yn/GjHfEA5MyV22 jV64sH11YwPoDWYx8oMtC96+o/CWIuim7WqDJY0DSYuaObpbJge5Aiv82FSDblKwcF+vPHY/W A1Qcql++G2LbcQxMtLnb75CQHt5LBThTYOzYzK2qoYc1WYLlpMUscn5mKZXlZiT8NG7mqa5ZV avwJbKLdrH8LhE189WD2LC4jgR9039wAJdn+jsFChdqPD7t71rJIfU0y3HKNpQkZIPPK1CM8M 19wH0d/Ag20wqbknn3CpiXJiDcgvbPxVb8sjJwLvCnD+Ueuss5nR64NgdVhhoWR0O8fy3nPWe NhvIUKMsOzeEv9bMHZFbDvAi1CvmhD/kJ0DrY/RHgwpYetpIyBpHJt0vBLs+zvAFB2arTWQnW jtyRgg== Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat 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: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 21:11:27 -0000 Hi David, > On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang wrote: >=20 > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Bloat wrote: >=20 >>> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital = communications infrastructure as life support critical. >>=20 >> 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > David Lang