Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Here is an old (2014) post on Stockholm to my class "textbook": https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html [https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-29b6JXMZN4g/U6nd1vJCr4I/auY/G4f091mDI80/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/stockholm.png]<https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html> Stockholm: 19 years of municipal broadband success<https://cis471.blogspot.com/2014/06/stockholm-19-years-of-municipal.html> 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 starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink__;!!P7nkOOY!vFtTwFdYBTFjrJCFqT0rp0o2dtaz2m-dskeRLX2dIW_Pujge6ZU8eOIxtkN_spTDlqyyzClrVbEMFFbvL3NlUgIHOg$ ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
ume 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] 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
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
ghts (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] > >> 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
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
>> 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 >> 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 ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
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] [1] - 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
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
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 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 > > >> comm
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
als. Stockholm is one of the top Internet cities in the worl... cis471.blogspot.com [1] - 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 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 ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
https://sifinetworks.com/residential/cities/simi-valley-ca/ I'm due to get it to my area Q2 (or so). we're a suburb outside LA, but 100k+ people so not tiny. David Lang On Tue, 28 Mar 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: There are municipal broadband projects. Most are in rural areas partially funded by the federal government via the USDA. Glasgow started a few decades ago. Similar to LUS in Lafayette, LA. https://www.usda.gov/broadband Rural areas get a lot of federal money for things, a la the farm bill which also pays for food stamps instituted as part of the New Deal after the Great Depression. https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/ None of this is really relevant to the vast majority of our urban populations that get broadband from investor-owned companies. These companies don't receive federal subsidies though sometimes they get access to municipal revenue bonds when doing city infrastructures. Bob 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 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 cl
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
There are municipal broadband projects. Most are in rural areas partially funded by the federal government via the USDA. Glasgow started a few decades ago. Similar to LUS in Lafayette, LA. https://www.usda.gov/broadband Rural areas get a lot of federal money for things, a la the farm bill which also pays for food stamps instituted as part of the New Deal after the Great Depression. https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/ None of this is really relevant to the vast majority of our urban populations that get broadband from investor-owned companies. These companies don't receive federal subsidies though sometimes they get access to municipal revenue bonds when doing city infrastructures. Bob 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 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
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
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.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 > > - > > 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 organ
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
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 pl
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Thanks for this. Yeah, I can understand MDUs are complex and present unique issues for both their Boards and companies to service them. Condo trusts, LLC non profits, co-ops, etc. Too many attorneys to boot. My attorney fees cost more than my training youth to install FiWi infra. The expensive, existing cos are asking $80K per building. The fire alarm installer is asking $100K per building. I figure we can get both for less than $180K but it's going to take some figuring out. And once we sink the money, it needs to be world-class with swappable parts. Others may then notice and follow suit. Then for dark fiber to a private colo about 1.5 miles away the ask is $5K per month. Buy my own switch and SFPs. Peering and ISP services are not included. So I do see the value Comcast brings. I think a challenge is that different options are needed for different customers. That's why I think pluggable optics, serdes and cmos radios are critical to the design for when we eventually go full fiber & wireless for the last meters. Bob Happy to help (you can ping me off-list). The main products are DOCSIS and PON these days and it kind of depends where you are, whether it is a new build, etc. As others said, it gets super complicated in MDUs and the infrastructure in place and the building agreements vary quite a bit. Jason From: Bloat on behalf of Nathan Owens via Bloat Reply-To: Nathan Owens Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 09:07 To: Robert McMahon Cc: Rpm , dan , Frantisek Borsik , Bruce Perens , libreqos , Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat Comcast's 6Gbps service is a niche product with probably <1000 customers. It requires knowledge and persistence from the customer to actually get it installed, a process that can take many months (It's basically MetroE). It requires you to be within 1760ft of available fiber, with some limit on install cost if trenching is required. In some cases, you may be able to trench yourself, or cover some of the costs (usually thousands to tens of thousands). On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:04 PM Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay go Bob On Mar 25, 2023, at 4:35 PM, David Lang wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: The fiber has basically infinite capacity. in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for equipment that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out really fast. David Lang - Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat [1] ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat [1] Links: -- [1] https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EOSY1k9O_PBuVuNNoTVKtyE8K5P8zDDQD-_ns2m_whJemleFOcMrd25veZFZqbIvJ292Ut9e47Owc0kkGpayyP8rW_bkOQ$ ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
I don't think so. The govt. just bailed out SVB for billionaires who were woefully underinsured. The claim is that it protected our financial system. Their risk officers didn't price in inflation and those impacts, i.e. they eliminated insurance without eliminating the liability. Texas govt sells windstorm insurance https://www.twia.org/ so the real estate industry will build houses in Hurricane prone areas. Society is good with that. Liabilities that will stop people from installing quality FiWi fire alarms are a failure that needs to be fixed too. We've got a lot of ground to cover. Bob if you want to eliminate insurance, then you need to eliminate the liability, which I don't think you want to do if you want to claim that this is 'life critical' David Lang ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Happy to help (you can ping me off-list). The main products are DOCSIS and PON these days and it kind of depends where you are, whether it is a new build, etc. As others said, it gets super complicated in MDUs and the infrastructure in place and the building agreements vary quite a bit. Jason From: Bloat on behalf of Nathan Owens via Bloat Reply-To: Nathan Owens Date: Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 09:07 To: Robert McMahon Cc: Rpm , dan , Frantisek Borsik , Bruce Perens , libreqos , Dave Taht via Starlink , bloat Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat Comcast's 6Gbps service is a niche product with probably <1000 customers. It requires knowledge and persistence from the customer to actually get it installed, a process that can take many months (It's basically MetroE). It requires you to be within 1760ft of available fiber, with some limit on install cost if trenching is required. In some cases, you may be able to trench yourself, or cover some of the costs (usually thousands to tens of thousands). On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:04 PM Robert McMahon via Bloat mailto:bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net>> wrote: The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay go Bob On Mar 25, 2023, at 4:35 PM, David Lang mailto:da...@lang.hm>> wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: The fiber has basically infinite capacity. in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for equipment that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out really fast. David Lang Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EOSY1k9O_PBuVuNNoTVKtyE8K5P8zDDQD-_ns2m_whJemleFOcMrd25veZFZqbIvJ292Ut9e47Owc0kkGpayyP8rW_bkOQ$> ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!EOSY1k9O_PBuVuNNoTVKtyE8K5P8zDDQD-_ns2m_whJemleFOcMrd25veZFZqbIvJ292Ut9e47Owc0kkGpayyP8rW_bkOQ$> ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Sure, this isn't about peering. It's about treating last mile infrastructure as critical infrastructure and paying those who work on it, construct it, maintain it, manage it, to meet high standards like we try to do for hospitals and water supplies. Peering, ad insertions, etc. are important but not relevant to this analysis unless I'm missing something. Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 5:28 PM, at 5:28 PM, David Lang wrote: >No, the primary cost (other than laying the fiber) is in the >electronics to >route the packets around once they leave the optics, and the upstream >bandwith >and peering to other ISPs. > >laying the fiber is expensive, optics are trivially cheap in >comparison, but >while the theoretical bandwidth of the fiber is huge, that's only for >the one >hop, once you get past that hop and have to deal with the aggregate >bandwidth of >multiple endpoints, something has to give. > >David Lang > >On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon wrote: > >> The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay >go >> >> Bob >> >> On Mar 25, 2023, 4:35 PM, at 4:35 PM, David Lang >wrote: >>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: >>> The fiber has basically infinite capacity. >>> >>> in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for >>> equipment >>> that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run >out >>> really >>> fast. >>> >>> 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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Our building is 100 meters from multiple fallow strands. I've got the kmz map from the dark fiber guys. The juniper switch was designed in 2012 and used old mfg processes, not sure the nanometers but likely 28. Newer ASICS improve power per bit per distance dramatically simply by using current foundries 5nm on the way to 3nm. Then on top of that there is a lot of NRE to further reduce power. That's why a 100Gb/s without gear boxes can run at 1W for all parts, serdes, laser etc and at distance. Not 5kW like a tower. 2g to 6g really adds nothing. My point was to see how flexible they were in optics per a customer ask. I suspect both use 10g and rate limiting. 10G optic parts are a decade old now. No improvements coming in 10G. Kinda like buying one of the last incandescent bulbs. Best to go led if possible. FiWi connected via 100Gb/s is the answer for the next ten years. The last mile providers will figure it out if given quality information and if they ask the right questions and demand the optimal metrics be used. They may have fallen victims to their own marketing. Hard to know from the outside. Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 5:07 PM, at 5:07 PM, Nathan Owens wrote: >Comcast's 6Gbps service is a niche product with probably <1000 >customers. >It requires knowledge and persistence from the customer to actually get >it >installed, a process that can take many months (It's basically MetroE). >It >requires you to be within 1760ft of available fiber, with some limit on >install cost if trenching is required. In some cases, you may be able >to >trench yourself, or cover some of the costs (usually thousands to tens >of >thousands). > >On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:04 PM Robert McMahon via Bloat < >bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay >go >> >> Bob >> On Mar 25, 2023, at 4:35 PM, David Lang wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: >>> >>> The fiber has basically infinite capacity. >>> >>> in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for >equipment >>> that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run >out really >>> fast. >>> >>> 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 >> ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
No, the primary cost (other than laying the fiber) is in the electronics to route the packets around once they leave the optics, and the upstream bandwith and peering to other ISPs. laying the fiber is expensive, optics are trivially cheap in comparison, but while the theoretical bandwidth of the fiber is huge, that's only for the one hop, once you get past that hop and have to deal with the aggregate bandwidth of multiple endpoints, something has to give. David Lang On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon wrote: The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay go Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 4:35 PM, at 4:35 PM, David Lang wrote: On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: The fiber has basically infinite capacity. in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for equipment that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out really fast. 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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Comcast's 6Gbps service is a niche product with probably <1000 customers. It requires knowledge and persistence from the customer to actually get it installed, a process that can take many months (It's basically MetroE). It requires you to be within 1760ft of available fiber, with some limit on install cost if trenching is required. In some cases, you may be able to trench yourself, or cover some of the costs (usually thousands to tens of thousands). On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 5:04 PM Robert McMahon via Bloat < bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay go > > Bob > On Mar 25, 2023, at 4:35 PM, David Lang wrote: >> >> On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: >> >> The fiber has basically infinite capacity. >>> >> >> in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for equipment >> that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out really >> fast. >> >> 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 > ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
The primary cost is the optics. That's why they're p in sfp and pay go Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 4:35 PM, at 4:35 PM, David Lang wrote: >On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: > >> The fiber has basically infinite capacity. > >in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for >equipment >that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out >really >fast. > >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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Sorry about your Healthcare experiences. It sucks it's rationed. Far from
perfect. We've got a ways to go for sure. Thankfully, today's medical
communities aren't using shit ladder water sources. Previous generations of
leaders in their field got that right.
My view is that leaders in our industry actually lead and stop making excuses
for about the world sucks and it's not doable. I know it sucks for many, been
there done that. Let's focus our energies every day on making it better to the
extent we can.
Then go to our graves in repose with Thomas Grey's epitaph
THE EPITAPH
Here rests his head upon the lap of Earth
A youth to Fortune and to Fame unknown.
Fair Science frown'd not on his humble birth,
And Melancholy mark'd him for her own.
Large was his bounty, and his soul sincere,
Heav'n did a recompense as largely send:
He gave to Mis'ry all he had, a tear,
He gain'd from Heav'n ('twas all he wish'd) a friend.
No farther seek his merits to disclose,
Or draw his frailties from their dread abode,
(There they alike in trembling hope repose)
The bosom of his Father and his God.
Bob
On Mar 25, 2023, 3:57 PM, at 3:57 PM, Bruce Perens wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:04 PM Robert McMahon
>
>wrote:
>
>> My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to
>insurance
>> companies, companies that figure figures for a living.
>>
>
>Be sure to be out there campaigning at every election. Really
>off-topic,
>but IMO the current scheme of health insurance keeps many people from
>going
>into their own business, and keeps them working for large companies.
>I'm
>sure that's deliberate. Valerie works for the University, which is the
>only
>thing that kept me under health insurance - I'm just a consultant.
>California would give me a plan today, but most states would not.
>November's heart attack cost $359K, the insurance company negotiated
>60K
>away and paid the rest, charging me $125. Prices aren't going to fall
>unless we get single-payer like most civilized countries. Somebody
>*does *have
>to pay for health care, though, and the choices are out of your pocket,
>or
>in your taxes, or through inflation.
>
>A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with
>> Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the
>egress
>> escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've
>basically
>> priced protecting human lives to only rich people.
>>
>
>If it's going indoors between the units, you need plenum-rated cable.
>LMR
>is really pricey in plenum-rated, RG-6 is more than adequate and more
>reasonably priced. RF between units is a legacy medium, though, there
>should be plenum-rated CAT-8. The dividers can be of the sort specified
>for
>cable TV. Wilkinson would be overkill and this is just a tiny toroid
>transformer in the box.
>
>The very best way to future proof is not with any sort of wire or
>fiber,
>but with conduit with lots of room, that can be re-pulled.
>
>I think it's on us to do similar for digital communication networks.
>> They're needed far beyond entertainment, and we need to get public
>safety
>> elements engaged too.
>>
>
>I'm really dubious. Anyone who has to cope with the cost is going to
>hear
>the siren call of wireless no matter how inappropriate it is to the
>task.
>You will be lucky if fiber makes it to urban buildings.
___
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: The fiber has basically infinite capacity. in theory, but once you start aggregating it and having to pay for equipment that can handle the rates, your 'infinite capaicty' starts to run out really fast. 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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Bruce Perens via Bloat wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:04 PM Robert McMahon wrote: My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to insurance companies, companies that figure figures for a living. Be sure to be out there campaigning at every election. Really off-topic, but IMO the current scheme of health insurance keeps many people from going into their own business, and keeps them working for large companies. I'm sure that's deliberate. Valerie works for the University, which is the only thing that kept me under health insurance - I'm just a consultant. California would give me a plan today, but most states would not. November's heart attack cost $359K, the insurance company negotiated 60K away and paid the rest, charging me $125. Prices aren't going to fall unless we get single-payer like most civilized countries. Somebody *does *have to pay for health care, though, and the choices are out of your pocket, or in your taxes, or through inflation. History, employer provided health insurance started in WWII as a way for companies to get around government wage controls to attract employees. I've been saying for a long time that if I could pay what the insurance companies pay, I wouldn't need health insurance (other than a catesrophic policy that didn't kick in until $10k or something like that) my suggestion (which I spout off when the topic comes up to get more people to think about in the hope that the idea spreads) is that if you are willing to pay at the time of service (including by CC) you should not have to pay more than x% (50-100% could even be reasonable) more than the lowest negotiated price that they have with any insurance company (not counting government run medicade/medicare, those aren't negotiations) rationale 1. bill collection is expensive (including the cost of people who never pay), so the price that they have to charge needs to account for these losses. 2. the 'list price' is getting inflated so that they can claim that they are getting a huge discount (so if the actual cost of the service to the provider goes up 10%, and the insurance company price negotiator wants an extra 10% discount this year, the service provider just increases the list price by 20% and everyone is happy, except the person paying list price out of pocket) 3. the reason for allowing > lowest negotiated prices is that there are some legtimate reasons for discounts (volume, directing people to you) that don't come into play for individuals. Given that I've seen negotiated prices around 10% of list price, being able to pay 15-20% of list price is still such a huge win that it's acceptable to still be up to double the insurance negotiated minimum. 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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Read the arguments on potable public water supplies. You're missing the forest per the trees. Also, Comcast offers full wifi services. The dmarc at the property line and right of way is artificial. The economics is a 100gb/s sfp. Not 2g or 6g. I'm asking for a roof of shingles vs a thatch roof. Many may laugh until they realize we're talking about real life issues. A 100Gb/s link drives queues to empty. Compute moves to speed of causality. That's the best we can do today and it'll be the best done in 50 or 100 years from now, assuming the optics are pluggable. We need to stop conflating capacity with latency. Doing so is a basic engineering flaw. The fiber has basically infinite capacity. Where it ends, where it starts and who gets to decide on the optics is a non trivial problem. And that choice matters. But hey, many men think it's their womb too, which is no longer funny. I want 6 Gbs optics. You laugh. Comcast says I can't have it. Why am I not in charge of this choice? Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 3:50 PM, at 3:50 PM, dan wrote: >I'm not quite following on this. It's really not comcast's >responsibility >to do maintenance on old cables etc. Once installed, those are >fixtures >and the responsibility of the building owner.Comcast etc are only >pulling wire in to enable their primary business of selling voice, tv, >and >data. All of these other pieces are clearly the responsibility of the >property owner to install. Trying to put this sort of thing on an ISP >would dramatically increase the cost of delivering services. > >I read the chat log and I would have closed it too. An HOA is a >business >in legal terms. for profit or non-profit, but still a business. The >cost >to bring all products to every home and business would dramatically >increase the average cost of services. The CSR offered a 2Gbit service >and >you replied that you want the lower latencies of the 6Gbit service for >your >fire alarm? Firstly, why would the 2Gbit have lower latency than the >6Gbit, and secondly how much data do you think a fire alarm uses? As >the >CSR I would be telling jokes about you with my co-workers. I'm not >meaning >to be too antagonistic here, but this is a bit over the top don't you >think? You're getting jostled around because you are demanding a >service >they don't offer at the address. You could have taken the 2Gbit plan >offer >and been installed in a few days and still had a product that is >literally >1000x more than your fire circuit needs. The moment you started in on >the >Boston fire I'd have been done. Irrelevant and sensationalist. Fire >alarms in all 50 states require either a hard wired telephone line or a >redundant data link (ISP+Cell for example) so the who 6Gbit to prevent >everyone from dying line is so over the top it made me switch teams >mid-read. > >"I dont have what you are asking for" / "connect me to someone who >does" is >the "Karen: I want to talk to your manager" equivalent for an ISP's CSR >to >hear. > >I could continue with how absurd a lot of what has been said is but I >don't >want kicked out of the group for being unfriendly so I'll let it be. > >On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 4:04 PM Robert McMahon > >wrote: > >> Hi Bruce, >> >> I think you may be the right guy to solve this. I too remember the >days of >> dry wire sold by the RBOCs. >> >> I found a structured wire fire alarm install to cost $100k for our >> building or $20k per unit. The labor and materials is about $25k. The >other >> $75k is liability related costs, similar to a bike helmet, $10 in >parts, >> $40 in insurance. So it's not labor nor equipment that drives the >expenses. >> My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to >insurance >> companies, companies that figure figures for a living. >> >> A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with >> Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the >egress >> escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've >basically >> priced protecting human lives to only rich people. >> >> We need to use technology and our cleverness to fix this version of >> "expense bloat." >> >> Look at Boston public water for an example. Way too expensive to pipe >> water in from 15 miles away in the early days. So people who did it >claimed >> alcoholism (and that "immorality") would be eliminated by providing >clean >> and pure potable public water. Alcholics would choose pathogen free >water >> over spirits. Rich people got enough water for themselves and even >for >> their private fountains so society stopped this initiative. >> >> It was a motivated doctor who taught rich people that their health >was >> tied to public health. And public health was being impacted because >> pathogens being spread to poor people who didn't get potable public >water >> would by addressed by ubiquitous potable water supplies. The fire >chief was >> put in charge. See Ties That Bind >> >>
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
if you want to eliminate insurance, then you need to eliminate the liability, which I don't think you want to do if you want to claim that this is 'life critical' David Lang On Sat, 25 Mar 2023, Robert McMahon via Bloat wrote: Hi Bruce, I think you may be the right guy to solve this. I too remember the days of dry wire sold by the RBOCs. I found a structured wire fire alarm install to cost $100k for our building or $20k per unit. The labor and materials is about $25k. The other $75k is liability related costs, similar to a bike helmet, $10 in parts, $40 in insurance. So it's not labor nor equipment that drives the expenses. My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to insurance companies, companies that figure figures for a living. A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the egress escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've basically priced protecting human lives to only rich people. We need to use technology and our cleverness to fix this version of "expense bloat." Look at Boston public water for an example. Way too expensive to pipe water in from 15 miles away in the early days. So people who did it claimed alcoholism (and that "immorality") would be eliminated by providing clean and pure potable public water. Alcholics would choose pathogen free water over spirits. Rich people got enough water for themselves and even for their private fountains so society stopped this initiative. It was a motivated doctor who taught rich people that their health was tied to public health. And public health was being impacted because pathogens being spread to poor people who didn't get potable public water would by addressed by ubiquitous potable water supplies. The fire chief was put in charge. See Ties That Bind https://upittpress.org/books/9780822961475/ Now, in the U.S, most do get potable water even to flush a toilet. It's taken for granted. I think it's on us to do similar for digital communication networks. They're needed far beyond entertainment, and we need to get public safety elements engaged too. Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 2:08 PM, at 2:08 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 1:44 PM rjmcmahon via Starlink < starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital communications infrastructure as life support critical. When I was younger there was a standard way to do this. Fire alarms had a dedicated pair directly to the fire department or a local alarm station. This wasn't dial-tone, it was a DC pair that would drop a trouble notification if DC was interrupted, and I think it would reverse polarity to indicate alarm. If DC was interrupted, that would also turn off the boiler in the building. Today my home fire alarms are wireless and have cellular back to their main Comcast connection, and detect CO, smoke, and temperature. This would not meet insurance requirements for a commercial building, they still have all of the sensors wired, with cellular backup. I don't think you are considering what life-support-critical digital communications would really cost. Start with metal conduit and fire-resistant wiring throughout the structure. Provide redundant power for *every* fan-out box (we just had a 24-hour power interruption here due to storms). AT provides 4 hour power for "Lightspeed" tombstone boxes that fan out telephone, beyond that a truck has to drive out and plug in a generator, or you are out of luck if it's a wide-are outage like we just had. Wire areas in a redundant loop rather than a tree. Supervise every home so that interruptions are serviced automatically. Provide a 4-hour SLA. The phone company used to do what you are asking for. The high prices this required are the main reason that everyone has jumped off of using the legacy telco for telephony. ___ 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] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 3:04 PM Robert McMahon wrote: > My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to insurance > companies, companies that figure figures for a living. > Be sure to be out there campaigning at every election. Really off-topic, but IMO the current scheme of health insurance keeps many people from going into their own business, and keeps them working for large companies. I'm sure that's deliberate. Valerie works for the University, which is the only thing that kept me under health insurance - I'm just a consultant. California would give me a plan today, but most states would not. November's heart attack cost $359K, the insurance company negotiated 60K away and paid the rest, charging me $125. Prices aren't going to fall unless we get single-payer like most civilized countries. Somebody *does *have to pay for health care, though, and the choices are out of your pocket, or in your taxes, or through inflation. A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with > Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the egress > escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've basically > priced protecting human lives to only rich people. > If it's going indoors between the units, you need plenum-rated cable. LMR is really pricey in plenum-rated, RG-6 is more than adequate and more reasonably priced. RF between units is a legacy medium, though, there should be plenum-rated CAT-8. The dividers can be of the sort specified for cable TV. Wilkinson would be overkill and this is just a tiny toroid transformer in the box. The very best way to future proof is not with any sort of wire or fiber, but with conduit with lots of room, that can be re-pulled. I think it's on us to do similar for digital communication networks. > They're needed far beyond entertainment, and we need to get public safety > elements engaged too. > I'm really dubious. Anyone who has to cope with the cost is going to hear the siren call of wireless no matter how inappropriate it is to the task. You will be lucky if fiber makes it to urban buildings. ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
I'm not quite following on this. It's really not comcast's responsibility to do maintenance on old cables etc. Once installed, those are fixtures and the responsibility of the building owner.Comcast etc are only pulling wire in to enable their primary business of selling voice, tv, and data. All of these other pieces are clearly the responsibility of the property owner to install. Trying to put this sort of thing on an ISP would dramatically increase the cost of delivering services. I read the chat log and I would have closed it too. An HOA is a business in legal terms. for profit or non-profit, but still a business. The cost to bring all products to every home and business would dramatically increase the average cost of services. The CSR offered a 2Gbit service and you replied that you want the lower latencies of the 6Gbit service for your fire alarm? Firstly, why would the 2Gbit have lower latency than the 6Gbit, and secondly how much data do you think a fire alarm uses? As the CSR I would be telling jokes about you with my co-workers. I'm not meaning to be too antagonistic here, but this is a bit over the top don't you think? You're getting jostled around because you are demanding a service they don't offer at the address. You could have taken the 2Gbit plan offer and been installed in a few days and still had a product that is literally 1000x more than your fire circuit needs. The moment you started in on the Boston fire I'd have been done. Irrelevant and sensationalist. Fire alarms in all 50 states require either a hard wired telephone line or a redundant data link (ISP+Cell for example) so the who 6Gbit to prevent everyone from dying line is so over the top it made me switch teams mid-read. "I dont have what you are asking for" / "connect me to someone who does" is the "Karen: I want to talk to your manager" equivalent for an ISP's CSR to hear. I could continue with how absurd a lot of what has been said is but I don't want kicked out of the group for being unfriendly so I'll let it be. On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 4:04 PM Robert McMahon wrote: > Hi Bruce, > > I think you may be the right guy to solve this. I too remember the days of > dry wire sold by the RBOCs. > > I found a structured wire fire alarm install to cost $100k for our > building or $20k per unit. The labor and materials is about $25k. The other > $75k is liability related costs, similar to a bike helmet, $10 in parts, > $40 in insurance. So it's not labor nor equipment that drives the expenses. > My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to insurance > companies, companies that figure figures for a living. > > A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with > Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the egress > escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've basically > priced protecting human lives to only rich people. > > We need to use technology and our cleverness to fix this version of > "expense bloat." > > Look at Boston public water for an example. Way too expensive to pipe > water in from 15 miles away in the early days. So people who did it claimed > alcoholism (and that "immorality") would be eliminated by providing clean > and pure potable public water. Alcholics would choose pathogen free water > over spirits. Rich people got enough water for themselves and even for > their private fountains so society stopped this initiative. > > It was a motivated doctor who taught rich people that their health was > tied to public health. And public health was being impacted because > pathogens being spread to poor people who didn't get potable public water > would by addressed by ubiquitous potable water supplies. The fire chief was > put in charge. See Ties That Bind > > https://upittpress.org/books/9780822961475/ > > Now, in the U.S, most do get potable water even to flush a toilet. It's > taken for granted. > > I think it's on us to do similar for digital communication networks. > They're needed far beyond entertainment, and we need to get public safety > elements engaged too. > > Bob > On Mar 25, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 1:44 PM rjmcmahon via Starlink < >> starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >> >>> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital >>> communications infrastructure as life support critical. >> >> >> When I was younger there was a standard way to do this. Fire alarms had a >> dedicated pair directly to the fire department or a local alarm station. >> This wasn't dial-tone, it was a DC pair that would drop a trouble >> notification if DC was interrupted, and I think it would reverse polarity >> to indicate alarm. If DC was interrupted, that would also turn off the >> boiler in the building. >> >> Today my home fire alarms are wireless and have cellular back to their >> main Comcast connection, and detect CO, smoke, and temperature. This would >> not meet
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
Hi Bruce, I think you may be the right guy to solve this. I too remember the days of dry wire sold by the RBOCs. I found a structured wire fire alarm install to cost $100k for our building or $20k per unit. The labor and materials is about $25k. The other $75k is liability related costs, similar to a bike helmet, $10 in parts, $40 in insurance. So it's not labor nor equipment that drives the expenses. My opinion is poor people shouldn't have to pay for insurance to insurance companies, companies that figure figures for a living. A digression: I could do an LMR 600 passive cable system looped with Wilkinson power dividers, patch antennas and nests to protect the egress escape ladder for about $10 to $15K. Don't need an SLA. We've basically priced protecting human lives to only rich people. We need to use technology and our cleverness to fix this version of "expense bloat." Look at Boston public water for an example. Way too expensive to pipe water in from 15 miles away in the early days. So people who did it claimed alcoholism (and that "immorality") would be eliminated by providing clean and pure potable public water. Alcholics would choose pathogen free water over spirits. Rich people got enough water for themselves and even for their private fountains so society stopped this initiative. It was a motivated doctor who taught rich people that their health was tied to public health. And public health was being impacted because pathogens being spread to poor people who didn't get potable public water would by addressed by ubiquitous potable water supplies. The fire chief was put in charge. See Ties That Bind https://upittpress.org/books/9780822961475/ Now, in the U.S, most do get potable water even to flush a toilet. It's taken for granted. I think it's on us to do similar for digital communication networks. They're needed far beyond entertainment, and we need to get public safety elements engaged too. Bob On Mar 25, 2023, 2:08 PM, at 2:08 PM, Bruce Perens wrote: >On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 1:44 PM rjmcmahon via Starlink < >starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital >> communications infrastructure as life support critical. > > >When I was younger there was a standard way to do this. Fire alarms had >a >dedicated pair directly to the fire department or a local alarm >station. >This wasn't dial-tone, it was a DC pair that would drop a trouble >notification if DC was interrupted, and I think it would reverse >polarity >to indicate alarm. If DC was interrupted, that would also turn off the >boiler in the building. > >Today my home fire alarms are wireless and have cellular back to their >main >Comcast connection, and detect CO, smoke, and temperature. This would >not >meet insurance requirements for a commercial building, they still have >all >of the sensors wired, with cellular backup. > >I don't think you are considering what life-support-critical digital >communications would really cost. Start with metal conduit and >fire-resistant wiring throughout the structure. Provide redundant power >for >*every* fan-out box (we just had a 24-hour power interruption here due >to >storms). AT provides 4 hour power for "Lightspeed" tombstone boxes >that >fan out telephone, beyond that a truck has to drive out and plug in a >generator, or you are out of luck if it's a wide-are outage like we >just >had. Wire areas in a redundant loop rather than a tree. Supervise every >home so that interruptions are serviced automatically. Provide a 4-hour >SLA. > >The phone company used to do what you are asking for. The high prices >this >required are the main reason that everyone has jumped off of using the >legacy telco for telephony. ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 1:44 PM rjmcmahon via Starlink < starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > The point of the thread is that we still do not treat digital > communications infrastructure as life support critical. When I was younger there was a standard way to do this. Fire alarms had a dedicated pair directly to the fire department or a local alarm station. This wasn't dial-tone, it was a DC pair that would drop a trouble notification if DC was interrupted, and I think it would reverse polarity to indicate alarm. If DC was interrupted, that would also turn off the boiler in the building. Today my home fire alarms are wireless and have cellular back to their main Comcast connection, and detect CO, smoke, and temperature. This would not meet insurance requirements for a commercial building, they still have all of the sensors wired, with cellular backup. I don't think you are considering what life-support-critical digital communications would really cost. Start with metal conduit and fire-resistant wiring throughout the structure. Provide redundant power for *every* fan-out box (we just had a 24-hour power interruption here due to storms). AT provides 4 hour power for "Lightspeed" tombstone boxes that fan out telephone, beyond that a truck has to drive out and plug in a generator, or you are out of luck if it's a wide-are outage like we just had. Wire areas in a redundant loop rather than a tree. Supervise every home so that interruptions are serviced automatically. Provide a 4-hour SLA. The phone company used to do what you are asking for. The high prices this required are the main reason that everyone has jumped off of using the legacy telco for telephony. ___ Bloat mailing list Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
Re: [Bloat] [Starlink] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
The cost of the labor is less than one might think. I've found it's cheaper to train young people in the trades to do this work vs using an overpriced company that mostly targets "rich corporations." It's also a golden egg or geese that can lay golden eggs thing. Let's train our youth well here. Some of us will be pushing up daisies before they finish. None of us have a guarantee of tomorrow. Bob I've never met a Comcast sales person who was able to operate at the level you're talking about. I think you would do better with a smaller company. I think you were also unrealistic if not disingenuous about lives put at risk. Alarms do not require more than 300 baud. Comcast would actually like to sell individual internet service for each of the five units. That's what they're geared to do. You're not going to get that very high speed rate for that ridiculously low price and fan it out to five domiciles. They would offer that for a single home and the users that could be expected in a single home, or maybe a small business but I think they would charge a business more. I pay Comcast more for a very small business at a lower rate. I think realistically the fiber connections you're talking about at the data rate you request in the privilege of fanning out to five domiciles should cost about $2400 per month. I get the complaint about wires on the outside etc. But who are you expecting to do that work? If you expect Comcast and their competitors to do that as part of their standard installation, you're asking for tens of thousands of dollars of work, and if that is to be the standard then everyone must pay much more than today. Nobody wants that, and most folks don't care about the current standard of installation. If this mattered enough to your homeowners association, they could pay for it. On Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 12:39 rjmcmahon via Starlink wrote: Hi All, I've been trying to modernize a building in Boston where I'm an HOA board member over the last 18 mos. I perceive the broadband network as a critical infrastructure to our 5 unit building. Unfortunately, Comcast staff doesn't seem to agree. The agent basically closed the chat on me mid-stream (chat attached.) I've been at this for about 18 mos now. While I think bufferbloat is a big issue, the bigger issue is that our last-mile providers must change their cultures to understand that life support use cases that require proper pathways, conduits & cabling can no longer be ignored. These buildings have coaxial thrown over the exterior walls done in the 80s then drilling holes without consideration of structures. This and the lack of environmental protections for our HOA's critical infrastructure is disheartening. It's past time to remove this shoddy work on our building and all buildings in Boston as well as across the globe. My hope was by now I'd have shown through actions what a historic building in Boston looks like when we, as humans in our short lives, act as both stewards of history and as responsible guardians to those that share living spaces and neighborhoods today & tomorrow. Motivating humans to better serve one another is hard. Bob___ 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] On fiber as critical infrastructure w/Comcast chat
I've never met a Comcast sales person who was able to operate at the level you're talking about. I think you would do better with a smaller company. I think you were also unrealistic if not disingenuous about lives put at risk. Alarms do not require more than 300 baud. Comcast would actually like to sell individual internet service for each of the five units. That's what they're geared to do. You're not going to get that very high speed rate for that ridiculously low price and fan it out to five domiciles. They would offer that for a single home and the users that could be expected in a single home, or maybe a small business but I think they would charge a business more. I pay Comcast more for a very small business at a lower rate. I think realistically the fiber connections you're talking about at the data rate you request in the privilege of fanning out to five domiciles should cost about $2400 per month. I get the complaint about wires on the outside etc. But who are you expecting to do that work? If you expect Comcast and their competitors to do that as part of their standard installation, you're asking for tens of thousands of dollars of work, and if that is to be the standard then everyone must pay much more than today. Nobody wants that, and most folks don't care about the current standard of installation. If this mattered enough to your homeowners association, they could pay for it. On Sat, Mar 25, 2023, 12:39 rjmcmahon via Starlink < starl...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi All, > > I've been trying to modernize a building in Boston where I'm an HOA > board member over the last 18 mos. I perceive the broadband network as a > critical infrastructure to our 5 unit building. > > Unfortunately, Comcast staff doesn't seem to agree. The agent basically > closed the chat on me mid-stream (chat attached.) I've been at this for > about 18 mos now. > > While I think bufferbloat is a big issue, the bigger issue is that our > last-mile providers must change their cultures to understand that life > support use cases that require proper pathways, conduits & cabling can > no longer be ignored. These buildings have coaxial thrown over the > exterior walls done in the 80s then drilling holes without consideration > of structures. This and the lack of environmental protections for our > HOA's critical infrastructure is disheartening. It's past time to remove > this shoddy work on our building and all buildings in Boston as well as > across the globe. > > My hope was by now I'd have shown through actions what a historic > building in Boston looks like when we, as humans in our short lives, act > as both stewards of history and as responsible guardians to those that > share living spaces and neighborhoods today & tomorrow. Motivating > humans to better serve one another is hard. > > Bob___ > 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
