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 [2]
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 [3]
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.bor...@gmail.com
On 28 March 2023 at 7:47:33 PM, rjmcmahon (rjmcma...@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 [1]
-------------------------
From: Starlink <starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> on behalf of
Sebastian Moeller via Starlink <starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2023 2:11 PM
To: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
Cc: dan <danden...@gmail.com>; Frantisek Borsik
<frantisek.bor...@gmail.com>; libreqos
<libre...@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Dave Taht via Starlink
<starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net>; rjmcmahon
<rjmcma...@rjmcmahon.com>;
bloat <bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] On fiber as critical infrastructure
w/Comcast chat
Hi David,
On Mar 26, 2023, at 22:57, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> 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
starl...@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
Links:
------
[1] http://cis471.blogspot.com
[2] tel:+421919416714
[3] tel:+420775230885
