Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[David Lang via Bloat]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan wrote:


On Mar 29, 2023 at 11:13:07 AM, David Lang  wrote:


On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote:

Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results aren't
pretty.
Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and power
lines
in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving to
the
regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos
(including
deliberate sabatage of competitors)

I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get fast
cable
service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, and I
can
still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) a
wireless
ISP as a backup

David Lang
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat



When you said ‘even with’ you negated the previous point.  ‘Even with’
incredible density the monopoly structure of broadband in America today
makes competition beaurocratically hard.  That should be the place where we
see fierce competition.


the monopoly structure prevents the competition, what was I not clear about 
related to that?


even in places where google fiber attempted to be competition, the incumbant 
monopoly blocked them by just being inconvienient with positioning fiber and got 
away with it. That's better than the old days of telephone service in NYC where 
competitors would cut other people's wires, but not by a lot.


David Lang


 Or, that should be the place the fiber has
completely wiped out cable, yet it hasn’t.   There are only so many
conclusions available here.  Fiber isn’t actually that much better than
cable, or the monopolies have non-monetary protections so competition can’t
move in,  or maybe those areas are already properly served 😕 . The
commonality in non-rural or small-town-rural areas that have connectivity
struggles is the monopoly that is in the way.  Rural areas often have few
options because the returns aren’t there for big companies, but they are
for small companies if they were actually able to get into those markets.
If you build in a monopoly in the rural areas, when they grow they will
have the same issue the urban areas have, a monopoly that was paid to
deliver last decades services and the only way they’ll upgrade is either
government money and mandates, or competition which you’ve prevented.  You
put a monopoly in place and that will be nearly permanent.  Outside the
scope of this debate but I’d rather see individual subsidies to promote
competition vs the government building out a monopoly.

I’ll remind you, I run 3 ISPs.  What limits my expansion is generally
protections given to a monopoly by local government.  You might ask Jeremy
from the previous comment, he has direct view to 2 of these networks and
might attest that we do reasonably well and are one of the ISPs putting in
real effort.   We welcome competition because it gives us an opportunity to
be the best.  Nothing better to drive positive reviews for your company
than being better than the other guys.

Also, in MOST of America, there is no shortage of money.  There is nothing
limiting multiple providers from building in.  You can find places this
isn’t true but 90%+ is it.  I run my businesses covering mostly rural areas
in a red state that is on the lower end of incomes and I’ve done this out
of pocket, operating in the black, and upgrading and expanding constantly.
I have 3 other wisps, spectrum, TDS, Century Link  in the area.  None of us
are hurting for money to expand services.  Also, I’m beating the
competition to the door vs their government money.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[dan via Bloat]

On Mar 29, 2023 at 1:02:51 PM, rjmcmahon  wrote:

> Hi Sebastian,
>
> I'm fine with municipal broadband projects. I do think they'll need to
> leverage the economy of scale driven by others. An ASIC tape out, just
> for the design, is ~$80M and a minimum of 18 mos of high-skill,
> engineering work by many specialties, signal integrity, etc. Then, after
> all that, one has to get in line with a foundry that needs to produce in
> volume per their mfg economies of scale. These markets fundamentally
> have to be driven by large orders from providers with millions of
> subscribers. That's just the market & engineering reality of things.
>
>
Every ASIC necessary to deploy is already on the market in high volume.  No
additional ~$80M needs spent.  ~$80M that MUST come from the customer at
the end of the day.  Another increase in broadband costs.   Every massive
change you suggest will pull money from actually running mainline fiber to
communities where various technologies can already deliver huge speeds at
low latency.  I’m an operator, my primary limitations logistically speaking
is inability to get 10Gbps+ fiber off the existing fiber footprint.  Even
the lowly DSL footprint could be upgraded with relative ease to get a few
hundred Mbps if, and forgive me for leaning not his so hard, the previously
designed monopoly that owned not only the copper plant but also the fiber
that is already there wasn’t waiting around for the next government hand
out before upgrading.   Fiber to the DSLAM and VSDL would be a nearly
instant upgrade to 100+ x 50+ speeds for easily 80% of rural users.

We don’t need a completely different model (FiWi) when we have all of the
parts and pieces in mass production and available right now, we have a
political system that promotes monopoly and actively encourages them to
wait until either a self funded competitor moves in or government money
shows up with mandates.  There is no reason at all to have 3-7Mbps DSL in
most of America.  This is not a technical limit.

An aspect of the FiWi argument is that these NRE spends today and
> tomorrow are mostly from SERDES & lasers/optics in the data centers and
> the CMOS radios & PHYs in handsets. Let us look here for the thousands
> of engineers needed and for the supply of parts for the next decade+. I
> don't see it coming from anywhere else.
>
We have 100G hardware routers from multiple vendors, Qualcomm, Broadcom,
Marvell.  We have 1-100G optics on the market today for cheap.  Marvell
makes a line of chips that can do 40Gbps hardware switch or routed for like
$20, get’s put in $200 MikroTik devices today. A grand gets you into a
device that can do 100G today.  Obviously that’s from the cheapest vendor
but 2-10x that price will get you into the ‘good stuff’.  We already have
this.


> Then we need the in-premise fiber installers and the OSP labor forces
> who are critical to our success.
>
> And finally, it's the operations & management and the reduction of those
> expenses in a manner that scales.
>
>
Where exactly are the costs, operations, and management savings here?

Basically this leads me to the question which I’m asking with an attempt to
avoid condescension, do you/have you run an ISP?  My operations and
management costs are primarily customer service and logistic (vehicles,
labor, and so on) and not network management.

Fiber in-premise has a negative value.  It’s more expensive to terminate
and repair, port costs are more, vastly (like 100x) more likely to damage a
fiber patch cable vs cat5e, and the advantages of fiber are lost on short
distances.  1,2.5, 5, and 10G copper is easy, cheap to terminate, cheap to
install, cheap ports in switches, cheap ports on devices, and fast.  The
entire ‘need’ for fiber in this context is the FiWi concept of centralized
networking which again IMO is something ALL IT/MSP will outright reject
killing it off for business uses and will not fare well for consumers who
are concerned more and more about privacy.

Just my opinion here, but the entirety of the FiWi concept will be dead on
arrival with almost all opposing it and only a few supporters.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Dave,

edited down to a single point

> On Mar 29, 2023, at 16:57, Dave Taht  wrote:
> [...]
> Fiber is great for long distances, it is great in high density
> environments, and it is also great within a datacenter or internet
> exchange point. As for to the home, I'm still of two minds regarding
> GPON vs active ethernet, I vastly prefer the idea of an interoperable
> network with active fiber ethernet gear you can get at best buy, but
> nearly everyone with actual deployment experience is saying gpon...
> [...]
> --
> AMA March 31: https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht
> Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

I agree with you, fully standardized ethernet over PtP fiber is preferable from 
an end-user perspective. The PONs really are making inroads for a number of 
reasons, that mostly are attractive to those deploying them (and that seem to 
be related mostly to cost).
The good thing is, that at least GPON and XGS-PON (where I bothered to 
read up a bit, oh boy, ITU documents are not reader friendly) seem "good 
enough", and deploying even those requires pulling the hottest chestnuts out of 
the fire (per dwelling unit fiber deployment), so any switch back to a fully 
point-to-point network in the future (should that ever be required) should be 
considerably cheaper than the initial PON roll-out. However I predict that PON 
will be good enough for quite a while
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[Dave Collier-Brown via Bloat]

It can be worse than that: if a monopoly owns the poles, you're going to have 
to bury your fibre. That will cost you something like $800,000 per mile, more 
if you have to cross a road.

In my home town, Chatham, Ontario, the local ISP is installing fibre 
underground because the duopoly of cable and telephone companies won't rent 
them pole space, much less bandwidth on their existing fibre.

This works for Chatham and Blenheim and a few others, but not for the smaller 
towns of Bothwell or Dresden, much less any of the villages or individual 
farms. They're out of luck.

--dave


On 3/29/23 13:46, Rich Brown wrote:

[EXTERNAL] This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content 
is safe.

On Mar 29, 2023, at 1:13 PM, David Lang via Starlink 
mailto:starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote:

The problem is that laying cable (or provisioning wifi access to cover the 
area) is expensive, and if you try to have multiple different companies doing 
it, they each need a minimum density of users to make it worth their while.

Yes, this stuff is expensive, Here is reasonably current order-of-magnitude 
cost breakdown for a rural NH town nearby:

1) $55,000 per road-mile to design the system, get licenses to install on the utility 
poles, "make ready" (to check that the poles are ready for new facilities) and 
to hang the fiber on the pole. Installing coax would save $5K to $8K per mile.

2) $2,000 to $4,000 per premise to install the drop from the utility pole to 
the building, bring the fiber into the building and install the router.

3) Pole rental (in NH) is about $10/pole/year. Divide miles of road by 200 feet 
between poles to get an estimate of the number of poles.

So density of customers is critical for the business case. That's why there are 
so many monopoly providers - it's costly to overbuild an already served area.


--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-br...@indexexchange.com
 |  -- Mark Twain


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any 
and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the 
person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or 
disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. If 
you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your inbox 
and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute an 
express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, nor 
does it constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment or an acceptance of a 
contract offer. Contract terms contained in this telecommunication are subject 
to legal review and the completion of formal documentation and are not binding 
until same is confirmed in writing and has been signed by an authorized 
signatory.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[Dave Taht via Bloat]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 12:02 PM Tom Evslin via Starlink
 wrote:
>
> What’s missing in this math is how much cheaper (and better) the installation 
> is if you displace or hang from the existing copper usually in great position 
> below the electricity and almost no makeready in this case. Problem is 
> getting rid of the almost but not quite unused copper plus ownership 
> problems. I was on an FCC TAC which tried to plan for this 14 years ago but 
> came to nothing.

What was the name of that?

I have been trying to find a great talk by Henning Shulzerinne about
the copper plant, that I think took place at IETF in the 2013? 2015?
timeframe that so far I have had no luck in finding. Maybe I am
remembering the wrong conference...

Btw Henning is my nominee for the 5th FCC commissioner, if only we had
a vote: see: https://twitter.com/mtaht/status/1640480264760741889

It really bothers me that STILL both the CTO for the USA and the CTO
of the FCC, are only "acting".




>
>
> Also could be burying fiber and electric with road repaving which is way 
> over-funded to increase reliability and decrease ongoing maintenance costs.
>
>
>
> From: Starlink  On Behalf Of Rich 
> Brown via Starlink
> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 1:46 PM
> To: David Lang 
> Cc: Dave Taht via Starlink ; dan 
> ; Dave Collier-Brown 
> ; libreqos 
> ; bloat 
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 29, 2023, at 1:13 PM, David Lang via Starlink 
>  wrote:
>
>
>
> The problem is that laying cable (or provisioning wifi access to cover the 
> area) is expensive, and if you try to have multiple different companies doing 
> it, they each need a minimum density of users to make it worth their while.
>
>
>
> Yes, this stuff is expensive, Here is reasonably current order-of-magnitude 
> cost breakdown for a rural NH town nearby:
>
>
>
> 1) $55,000 per road-mile to design the system, get licenses to install on the 
> utility poles, "make ready" (to check that the poles are ready for new 
> facilities) and to hang the fiber on the pole. Installing coax would save $5K 
> to $8K per mile.
>
>
>
> 2) $2,000 to $4,000 per premise to install the drop from the utility pole to 
> the building, bring the fiber into the building and install the router.
>
>
>
> 3) Pole rental (in NH) is about $10/pole/year. Divide miles of road by 200 
> feet between poles to get an estimate of the number of poles.
>
>
>
> So density of customers is critical for the business case. That's why there 
> are so many monopoly providers - it's costly to overbuild an already served 
> area.
>
>
>
> ___
> Starlink mailing list
> starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink



-- 
AMA March 31: https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[rjmcmahon via Bloat]

Hi Sebastian,

I'm fine with municipal broadband projects. I do think they'll need to 
leverage the economy of scale driven by others. An ASIC tape out, just 
for the design, is ~$80M and a minimum of 18 mos of high-skill, 
engineering work by many specialties, signal integrity, etc. Then, after 
all that, one has to get in line with a foundry that needs to produce in 
volume per their mfg economies of scale. These markets fundamentally 
have to be driven by large orders from providers with millions of 
subscribers. That's just the market & engineering reality of things.


An aspect of the FiWi argument is that these NRE spends today and 
tomorrow are mostly from SERDES & lasers/optics in the data centers and 
the CMOS radios & PHYs in handsets. Let us look here for the thousands 
of engineers needed and for the supply of parts for the next decade+. I 
don't see it coming from anywhere else.


Then we need the in-premise fiber installers and the OSP labor forces 
who are critical to our success.


And finally, it's the operations & management and the reduction of those 
expenses in a manner that scales.


Bob

Hi Bob,



On Mar 28, 2023, at 19:47, rjmcmahon  wrote:

Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this 
(structural separation) right.


There really isn't that much to get wrong, you built the access
network and terminate the per household fibers in arge enough
"exchanges" there you offer ISPs to lighten up the fibers on the
premise that customers can use any ISP they want (that is present in
the exchange)... and on ISP change will just be patched differently in
the exchange.
While I think that local "government" also could successfully run
internet access services, I see no reason why they should do so
(unless there is no competition).
The goal here is to move the "natural monopoly" of the access network
out of the hand of the "market" (as markets simply fail as optimizing
resource allocation instruments under mono- and oligopoly conditions,
on either side).




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.


I would argue this is that there are things where cities excel and
some where they simply are mediocre... managing monopoly
infrastructure (like roads, water, sometime power) with long
amortization times is something they do well (either directly or via
companies they own and operate).

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.


Yes, that is why the operator of the last mile, should really not
offer services over that mile itself. Real competition on the access
lines themselves is not going to happen (at least not is sufficient
number to make a market solution viable), but there is precedence of
getting enough service providers to offer their services over access
lines (e.g. Amsterdam).

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.


I am not 100% sure this is a uni- versus broadcast issue... even on
uni-cast I can consume traditional middle-of the road news and even on
broadcast I can opt for pretend-news. Sure 

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Jeremy,


> On Mar 29, 2023, at 18:53, Jeremy Austin via Starlink 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:54 AM dan via LibreQoS 
>  wrote:
> 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.
> 
> To say categorically that competition is the only solution disenfranchises 
> the sparse edge where it doesn’t pay to have a *single* terrestrial 
> incumbent, let alone two.
> 
> Yes, we will have StarLink, and perhaps eventually some competition to it 
> (Bezos), but there is no escaping the reality that competition in the last 
> mile destroys value.
> 
> Between StarLink densities and this utopia where both fiber and cable can 
> afford to build (and maintain!) enough customers lie a giant wasteland — not 
> enough customers for lines, too many for LEO. Fixed Wireless Access helps, 
> but even in that context competition destroys value.

Let's be real, even a dwelling unit that can choose between LTE/5G, 
DOCSIS-cable and FTTH really will be limited to a low single digit number of 
ISPs, that is still an oligopoly situation, and we know that 
competition/markets do not work well in such situations.


> You can have subsidy (“Broadband for All” OR consumer choice, not both.

I argue that if e.g. the same set of "hands" that builds/maintains the 
access roads to the dwelling units would also deploy dark fiber concentrated in 
a few large enough "exchanges", can actually offer consumer choice (by enabling 
ISPs to do what they do best, offer internet access service lighting-up those 
dark fibers) and broadband for all... (sooner or later, roll-out still takes a 
long while...)


> At this point I would hold up an Omnibus-podcast-like sign “Compatible With 
> Marxism”, or “Not Compatible With Marxism”, but I’m not sure which.  \

;)

> 
> $.02
> Jeremy
> 
> -- 
>   
> Jeremy Austin
> Sr. Product Manager
> Preseem | Aterlo Networks
> Book a call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548
> 1-833-773-7336 ext 718 | 1-907-803-5422
> jer...@aterlo.com
> www.preseem.com
>  
> 
> ___
> Starlink mailing list
> starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[Rich Brown via Bloat]

> On Mar 29, 2023, at 1:13 PM, David Lang via Starlink 
>  wrote:
> 
> The problem is that laying cable (or provisioning wifi access to cover the 
> area) is expensive, and if you try to have multiple different companies doing 
> it, they each need a minimum density of users to make it worth their while.

Yes, this stuff is expensive, Here is reasonably current order-of-magnitude 
cost breakdown for a rural NH town nearby:

1) $55,000 per road-mile to design the system, get licenses to install on the 
utility poles, "make ready" (to check that the poles are ready for new 
facilities) and to hang the fiber on the pole. Installing coax would save $5K 
to $8K per mile.

2) $2,000 to $4,000 per premise to install the drop from the utility pole to 
the building, bring the fiber into the building and install the router. 

3) Pole rental (in NH) is about $10/pole/year. Divide miles of road by 200 feet 
between poles to get an estimate of the number of poles.

So density of customers is critical for the business case. That's why there are 
so many monopoly providers - it's costly to overbuild an already served area.

___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[dan via Bloat]

On Mar 29, 2023 at 11:13:07 AM, David Lang  wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote:
>
> Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results aren't
> pretty.
> Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and power
> lines
> in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving to
> the
> regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos
> (including
> deliberate sabatage of competitors)
>
> I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get fast
> cable
> service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, and I
> can
> still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) a
> wireless
> ISP as a backup
>
> David Lang
> ___
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>

When you said ‘even with’ you negated the previous point.  ‘Even with’
incredible density the monopoly structure of broadband in America today
makes competition beaurocratically hard.  That should be the place where we
see fierce competition.  Or, that should be the place the fiber has
completely wiped out cable, yet it hasn’t.   There are only so many
conclusions available here.  Fiber isn’t actually that much better than
cable, or the monopolies have non-monetary protections so competition can’t
move in,  or maybe those areas are already properly served 😕 . The
commonality in non-rural or small-town-rural areas that have connectivity
struggles is the monopoly that is in the way.  Rural areas often have few
options because the returns aren’t there for big companies, but they are
for small companies if they were actually able to get into those markets.
If you build in a monopoly in the rural areas, when they grow they will
have the same issue the urban areas have, a monopoly that was paid to
deliver last decades services and the only way they’ll upgrade is either
government money and mandates, or competition which you’ve prevented.  You
put a monopoly in place and that will be nearly permanent.  Outside the
scope of this debate but I’d rather see individual subsidies to promote
competition vs the government building out a monopoly.

I’ll remind you, I run 3 ISPs.  What limits my expansion is generally
protections given to a monopoly by local government.  You might ask Jeremy
from the previous comment, he has direct view to 2 of these networks and
might attest that we do reasonably well and are one of the ISPs putting in
real effort.   We welcome competition because it gives us an opportunity to
be the best.  Nothing better to drive positive reviews for your company
than being better than the other guys.

Also, in MOST of America, there is no shortage of money.  There is nothing
limiting multiple providers from building in.  You can find places this
isn’t true but 90%+ is it.  I run my businesses covering mostly rural areas
in a red state that is on the lower end of incomes and I’ve done this out
of pocket, operating in the black, and upgrading and expanding constantly.
I have 3 other wisps, spectrum, TDS, Century Link  in the area.  None of us
are hurting for money to expand services.  Also, I’m beating the
competition to the door vs their government money.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[David Lang via Bloat]

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, dan via Bloat wrote:


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.


The problem is that laying cable (or provisioning wifi access to cover the area) 
is expensive, and if you try to have multiple different companies doing it, they 
each need a minimum density of users to make it worth their while.


In the current monopoly approach, they are required by contract to serve less 
profitable areas in order to be given the monopoly for the profitable ones, take 
away that monopoly, and further dilute the user density by having multiple 
companies provide service, and the result isn't good.


Even in the big cities where there is enough density, the results aren't pretty. 
Go back in history and look at what was happening with phone and power lines 
in places like New York City before the monopolies were setup. Moving to the 
regulated monoopolies was hailed by users as a win from that chaos (including 
deliberate sabatage of competitors)


I'm in a Los Angeles Suburb, and until recently, I couldn't even get fast cable 
service to my home, the city owned fiber will be a huge win for me, and I can 
still have my starlink dish, cell phone, or (once they cover my area) a wireless 
ISP as a backup


David Lang___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[Jeremy Austin via Bloat]

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:54 AM dan via LibreQoS <
libre...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
To say categorically that competition is the only solution disenfranchises
the sparse edge where it doesn’t pay to have a *single* terrestrial
incumbent, let alone two.

Yes, we will have StarLink, and perhaps eventually some competition to it
(Bezos), but there is no escaping the reality that competition in the last
mile destroys value.

Between StarLink densities and this utopia where both fiber and cable can
afford to build (and maintain!) enough customers lie a giant wasteland —
not enough customers for lines, too many for LEO. Fixed Wireless Access
helps, but even in that context competition destroys value.

You can have subsidy (“Broadband for All” OR consumer choice, not both.

At this point I would hold up an Omnibus-podcast-like sign “Compatible With
Marxism”, or “Not Compatible With Marxism”, but I’m not sure which.

$.02
Jeremy

-- 
[image: Company logo]
*Jeremy Austin*
Sr. Product Manager
*Preseem | Aterlo Networks*
Book a call: https://app.hubspot.com/meetings/jeremy548
1-833-773-7336 ext 718 *|* 1-907-803-5422
jer...@aterlo.com
www.preseem.com
 [image: facebook icon] [image: twitter icon] [image: linkedin icon] [image:
youtube icon]
[image: Ask us about our new features today!]

___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[Dave Taht via Bloat]

I ended up top posting, sorry. Frank: every conversation here does not
end as you say - there have been 14 years worth of conversation
here

As for finding ways out of this mess, olle, the future of the internet
as we know it is uncertain. It has long been obvious that "a
declaration of freedom of cyberspace" wouldn't work, but, overall, I
think we can continue to "shrink the world", and connect people
ever-better together.

I liked the approach we took in the mid-90s, in particular,
establishing non-profits to attempt to be neutral arbiters of how we
hooked the internet up together, ranging from a multiplicity of orgs
like ICANN (managing numbering), the RIR's (fairly distributing the
numbers), and the IETF and IEEE.

Places where we went commercial (like the name registrars) were pretty
competitive but where we  handed out  "natural monopolies", somewhat
less so - .com for example, the gold rush for .tlds, but .org, at
least, worked out more or less, helping support isoc and the ietf.
Some RIRs were good (apnic, ripe, ARIN), some, like AFRINIC, not so
much. The commercial ISP market that started in the 90s was fueled by
a flat market for phone services, and the AT&Ts of then were caught
flatfooted by the sudden demand for phone lines that were nailed up
for 3 hours, rather than 3 minutes, as had been the case for voice
calls.

On the other hand, makers of needed infrastructure software, like
isc.org (makers of bind9 and dhcp only survived due to the support of
a beneficent millionaire ). DNS has kind of fallen into disrepair
along the edge. I would have really liked it had it remained viable
and email in particular, continued to transit all the way into the
home, where in the US at least, it would have had strong 4th amendment
protections.

It has been a bad decade or two for non-profits. They cannot lobby,
the structure of corporate and personal taxation has shifted away from
support for it, and the work they do to sustain the internet, far too
invisible to too many. There have been meetings for years about
internet governance from folk that wish to govern, but by design and
intent, I think, from those days, we attempted to make the Net
ungovernable, which I do think, remains a good thing - connecting
people to people - with as few intermediaries and influencers as
possible.

I can certainly now make a compelling argument for capital forces
distributing IPv4 address spaces better (which it is doing), but that
scarcity market excludes new entrants from getting online. I shudder
at whatever convolutions new broadband builders are going to have to
go through to provide decent ipv4 access...

It is also increasing a bad-seeming market for the cell companies and
ISPs, with cries for subsidy or a two way market billing the more
profitable cloudy service providers.

And so it goes.

A bit more below.


On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:46 AM Frantisek Borsik via LibreQoS
 wrote:
>
> Guys, tell me why - besides that it's just the usual, human nature - why 
> every discussion here ends with our version of the "reductio ad Hitlerum", 
> which is, in my mind, more or less subtle attack on capitalism, 
> entrepreneurship, corporations, market and the like.
> Also, more importantly, we all want to close that goddamn digital divide. And 
> we will never gonna do it with fiber ONLY...not to mention FiWi.

The digital divide, if you count tethering to a cellphone, is largely
crossed in the USA, IMHO.

> Also, if there are some fruitful attempts to build some community broadband, 
> be it fiber, wireless or mix...we end up with "yeah, but it's not done in big 
> cities, just in some rural areas."

I look at the fiber effort in bloomington, il, that doc just praised.
They have been at it now, for 14 years I would really like a
starting point for cities to be merely enabling a local internet
exchange point and/or small data center.

>
> We need to close the digital divide - which is, mostly, locate in the rural 
> areas, e.g. to bring broadband where it's not or where it's not sufficient 
> and there is a lot of tools in the toolbox, not just fiber, and every single 
> one of them has its place and should be used and funded by the grant money. 
> The majority of these places need to be served quickly and on the best effort 
> a.k.a what is actually possible and feasible in their respective territory, 
> terrain...and on on the BS notion "GIGABIT or NOTHING", or even 100/20 or 
> nothing, when 25/5 would be more than enough, for most of the cases, in the 
> foreseeable future.

0) frank is quoting me from a BOFH-influenced new piece that I posted
the other day:
 https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/trouble_in_paradise/ that is so cynical
and depressing that I would prefer it not be spread around much. It is
funny, in spots, though.

1) I am really impressed with starlink's evolution. Someone can get
one, run a few radios or wires to their neighbors, and be sufficiently
online. That is not quite starlink's business model, but as t

Re: [Bloat] [LibreQoS] Enabling a production model

[dan via Bloat]

>
>
>
> > 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—Santa Barbara (CA), New York (NY), Bloomington (IN),
> and San Marino (CA)—are 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 just
> one grace of upstream capacity). The market is rigged for consumption, not
> production, on the TV model. Same as it has been since commercial activity
> 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.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat

Re: [Bloat] Sorry I Missed You! Follow-up for blog.cerowrt.org

[Dave Collier-Brown via Bloat]

The calculator of what speed you need requires me to be in the US, while I'm in 
Toronto Canada.

In principle my work-from-home needs are identical to an employee in New York 
(:-))

--dave

On 3/29/23 09:37, Allconnect Info via Bloat wrote:

Hi,

Am I sending this to the right contact address at blog.cerowrt.org? Please let 
me know if there is someone else I should forward this message to, and I 
apologize for any inconvenience.

I was hoping to connect with someone who could incorporate our resource guide 
about internet speeds on their page.

You can check out the guide here:
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/consumers-guide-to-internet-speed

Please let me know if you would be willing to add our resource.

Thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Best,

Mitch James

[cid:189219af105c9787923e04ccb46e5df]

Communications Coordinator at Allconnect.com

i...@o.allconnect.com

[cid:be2fe64c1fdd583d2f13e9734e49c367]   
[cid:87ba1ef7ff4284340e45b403ec3cf8c]   
[cid:d97df2945b0dcc64cefd919c7c7189c] 

Don't want emails from us anymore? Click 
here

Allconnect Inc, 980 Hammond Drive Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328, United 
States


-Original Message-

Hi,

I am following up on my previous email about our detailed guide on internet 
speeds. It’s completely free to add, and we are passing it along in hopes that 
it helps users understand internet speeds in a better way.

You can check it out here:
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/consumers-guide-to-internet-speed

I thought it would be a great fit on your page:
https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Tests_for_Bufferbloat/

Would you consider adding our guide to blog.cerowrt.org?

I look forward to hearing from you!

Gratefully,

Mitch James

[cid:189219af105c9787923e04ccb46e5df]

Communications Coordinator at Allconnect.com

i...@o.allconnect.com

[cid:be2fe64c1fdd583d2f13e9734e49c367]   
[cid:87ba1ef7ff4284340e45b403ec3cf8c]   
[cid:d97df2945b0dcc64cefd919c7c7189c] 

Don't want emails from us anymore? Click 
here

Allconnect Inc, 980 Hammond Drive Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328, United 
States


-Original Message-

Hi,

I hope you’re doing well! I noticed you included information on internet speeds 
here:

https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/Tests_for_Bufferbloat/

The information you provided is very helpful, so I am passing along an 
additional resource our team created that focuses on a more detailed breakdown 
of internet speeds. It could be a great addition to your page for people 
interested in learning more about them.

https://www.allconnect.com/blog/consumers-guide-to-internet-speed

Our internet resource is completely free to add and includes:

 *   Helpful information and charts diving into internet speeds
 *   Internet definitions and facts
 *   Steps to determine how much bandwidth someone needs based on their activity
 *   An easy-to-use internet speed test

Would you be willing to add our resource to your page?

Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to hearing from you!

Thank you,

Mitch James

[cid:189219af105c9787923e04ccb46e5df]

Communications Coordinator at Allconnect.com

i...@o.allconnect.com

[cid:be2fe64c1fdd583d2f13e9734e49c367]   
[cid:87ba1ef7ff4284340e45b403ec3cf8c]   
[cid:d97df2945b0dcc64cefd919c7c7189c] 

Don't want emails from us anymore? Click 
here

Allconnect Inc, 980 Hammond Drive Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328, United 
States




___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat


--
David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
dave.collier-br...@indexexchange.com
 |  -- Mark Twain


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any 
and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the 
person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or 
discl

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[Frantisek Borsik via Bloat]

Guys, tell me why - besides that it's just the usual, human nature - why
every discussion here ends with our version of the "reductio ad Hitlerum",
which is, in my mind, more or less subtle attack on capitalism,
entrepreneurship, corporations, market and the like.
Also, more importantly, we all want to close that goddamn digital divide.
And we will never gonna do it with fiber ONLY...not to mention FiWi.

Also, if there are some fruitful attempts to build some community
broadband, be it fiber, wireless or mix...we end up with "yeah, but it's
not done in big cities, just in some rural areas."

We need to close the digital divide - which is, mostly, locate in the rural
areas, e.g. to bring broadband where it's not or where it's not sufficient
and there is a lot of tools in the toolbox, not just fiber, and every
single one of them has its place and should be used and funded by the grant
money. The majority of these places need to be served quickly and on the
best effort a.k.a what is actually possible and feasible in their
respective territory, terrain...and on on the BS notion "GIGABIT or
NOTHING", or even 100/20 or nothing, when 25/5 would be more than enough,
for most of the cases, in the foreseeable future.

To let me bitch a bit about those bad corporations :) - just take a look on
the market with WiFi routers. Most of the mainstream vendors ship old HW
with old SW, it can be even 8-10 years old kernel, they don't care about
CVEs, they barely do some security updates - not to mention the regular SW
upgrades (adding new features), they don't built do last...they want You to
buy a new router every year or two. Dave's write up of this is here:
https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/tango_on_turris/
And what Starlink did? Crazy, ridiculous story
. It has been improved a bit,
but it was meant to be good right from the box, bufferbloat fixed and all
that jazz, because OpenWrt has it fixed, right?

BUT still, to hand over even more control of the Internet infrastructure to
the government is nonsense. Government can be a good servant, but a bad
master. Exactly like the corporate world.


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.bor...@gmail.com


On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:28 AM Sebastian Moeller  wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 2023, at 19:47, rjmcmahon  wrote:
> >
> > Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this
> (structural separation) right.
>
> There really isn't that much to get wrong, you built the access network
> and terminate the per household fibers in arge enough "exchanges" there you
> offer ISPs to lighten up the fibers on the premise that customers can use
> any ISP they want (that is present in the exchange)... and on ISP change
> will just be patched differently in the exchange.
> While I think that local "government" also could successfully run internet
> access services, I see no reason why they should do so (unless there is no
> competition).
> The goal here is to move the "natural monopoly" of the access network out
> of the hand of the "market" (as markets simply fail as optimizing resource
> allocation instruments under mono- and oligopoly conditions, on either
> side).
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> I would argue this is that there are things where cities excel and
> some where they simply are mediocre... managing monopoly infrastructure
> (like roads, water, sometime power) with long amortization times is
> something they do well (either directly or via companies they own and
> operate).
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, that is why the operator of the last mile, should really not
> offer 

[Bloat] Enabling a production model

[Dave Taht via Bloat]

Doc: thank you for giving me a way to express the promise of fiber to
enable a better "production model",
in what you wrote below.

Btw, folks, I am doing an AMA with broadband.io on friday, with a live
chat. It is a chance for us techies to engage more directly with the
state directors with $70B of government funding as part of the NTIA
BEAD program and others like internet4all - and to help focus them on
things that would result in a genuinely better internet. I plan to
focus more on reducing latency and improving interoperability than
bufferbloat, but I have no idea what will happen. "This broadband of
which you speak... does it have IPv6?".

Please come!? I would love it if more folk with experience all around
the world, in what can be done right and wrong with a broadband
rollout, if they showed up to help us here in the USA.

https://www.broadband.io/c/broadband-grant-events/dave-taht

On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 6:22 AM Doc Searls via Starlink
 wrote:
>
> 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—Santa Barbara (CA), New York (NY), Bloomington (IN), and San 
> Marino (CA)—are 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 just one grace of upstream capacity). 
> The market is rigged for consumption, not production, on the TV model. Same 
> as it has been since commercial activity 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.

> But here in Bloomington, where I am writing now, the city has come up with a 
> public/private arrangement that has much promise:
>
> https://www.bloomington.in.gov/fiber

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.
>
> Doc
>
> On Mar 29, 2023, at 8:27 AM, Dave Collier-Brown via Starlink 
>  wrote:
>
>
> On 3/29/23 04:28, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote:
>
> Hi Bob,
>
>
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 19:47, rjmcmahon  wrote:
>
> Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this 
> (structural separation) right.
>
> There really isn't that much to get wrong, you built the access network and 
> terminate the per household fibers in arge enough "exchanges" there you offer 
> ISPs to lighten up the fibers on the premise that customers can use any ISP 
> they want (that is present in the exchange)... and on ISP change will just be 
> patched differently in the exchange.
> While I think that local "government" also could successfully run internet 
> access services, I see no reason why they should do so (unless there is no 
> competition).
> The goal here is to move the "natural monopoly" of the access network out of 
> the hand of the "market" (as markets simply fail as optimizing resource 
> allocation instruments under mono- and oligopoly conditions, on either side).
>
>
> We see  the same issue in Canada: some provinces and cities happily
> manage the delivery of services over cables hung from province-owned
> poles (eg, TCP/IP in New Brunswick).  Other provinces did less well, and
> we have "telephone poles" and "hydro poles" on the same street (in
> Toronto, Ontario)
>
> There is no real difference between New Brunswick, Ontario or, for that
> matter, Minnesota. If a province or city has operated natural monopolies
> like the last mile for water and sewer, it can operate the last mile for
> any other monopoly.
>
> --dave
>
> --
> David Collier-Brown, | Always do right. This will gratify
> System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
> dave.collier-br...@indexexchange.com |  -- Mark Twain
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER : This telecommunication, including any 
> and all attachments, contains confidential information intended only for the 
> person(s) to whom it is addressed. Any dissemination, distribution, copying 
> or disclosure is strictly prohibited and is not a waiver of confidentiality. 
> If you have received this telecommunication in error, please notify the 
> sender immediately by return electronic mail and delete the message from your 
> inbox and deleted items folders. This telecommunication does not constitute 
> an express or implied agreement to conduct transactions by electronic means, 
> nor does it constitute

Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat

[Sebastian Moeller via Bloat]

Hi Bob,


> On Mar 28, 2023, at 19:47, rjmcmahon  wrote:
> 
> Interesting. I'm skeptical that our cities in the U.S. can get this 
> (structural separation) right.

There really isn't that much to get wrong, you built the access network and 
terminate the per household fibers in arge enough "exchanges" there you offer 
ISPs to lighten up the fibers on the premise that customers can use any ISP 
they want (that is present in the exchange)... and on ISP change will just be 
patched differently in the exchange.
While I think that local "government" also could successfully run internet 
access services, I see no reason why they should do so (unless there is no 
competition).
The goal here is to move the "natural monopoly" of the access network out of 
the hand of the "market" (as markets simply fail as optimizing resource 
allocation instruments under mono- and oligopoly conditions, on either side).


> 
> 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.

I would argue this is that there are things where cities excel and some 
where they simply are mediocre... managing monopoly infrastructure (like roads, 
water, sometime power) with long amortization times is something they do well 
(either directly or via companies they own and operate). 

> 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.

Yes, that is why the operator of the last mile, should really not offer 
services over that mile itself. Real competition on the access lines themselves 
is not going to happen (at least not is sufficient number to make a market 
solution viable), but there is precedence of getting enough service providers 
to offer their services over access lines (e.g. Amsterdam).

> 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.

I am not 100% sure this is a uni- versus broadcast issue... even on 
uni-cast I can consume traditional middle-of the road news and even on 
broadcast I can opt for pretend-news. Sure the social media explosion with its 
auto-bias-amplification incentives (they care for time spend on the platform 
and will show anything they believe will people stay longer, and guess what 
that is not a strategy to rhymes well with objective information transmission, 
but emotional engagement, often negative, but I think we all know this).


> 
> 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.

Yes, for sure not ;) This is a fad mostly, and will go away some time 
in the future, once people realize that this flavor of machine learning is 
great for what it is, but what it is is not what we are prone to believe it 
is...

Regards
Sebastian


> 
> 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]
>>