Hi Bob,
> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:18, rjmcmahon <rjmcma...@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>
> Tragedy of the commons occurs because the demand & free price for the common
> resources outstrips supply. Free cow grazing in Boston Commons only worked
> for 70 cows and then collapsed.
[SM] Here is the thing, if the carrying capacity is/was 70 the local
regulator would have needed to make sure that at no time there were more than
70 cows and come up with a schedule... so from my vantage point that was
insufficient regulation and/or enforcement...
> Over fishing in multiple places today are killing off a "wild" food supply.
[SM] Same thing ;)
> The regulator tries to manage the demand while keeping prices artificially
> low, typically for political/populism reasons, vs finding ways to increase or
> substitute supply and create incentives for investment. In the U.S., they
> seem to ultimately give up (regulatory capture is a form of resignation) and
> let so-called privatization occur (barbed wire ranches throughout Texas vs
> free roaming) which also allows ownership & market forces to come into play,
> even if imperfectly.
[SM] We had a large helping of this over here as well during the 90ies
neo-liberal "revolution" where European states privatized previously state
owned property on the theory that on private hands this property would generate
more income for all. It turns out the "all" in the promise was not the same all
initially hoped for... in some cases these privatizations worked out OK-ish in
others not so much... I am old enough to remember the less than perfect sides
of our old Bundespost monopoly telco but I also see what is going wrong in the
new shiny world of private telcos... (it was easier to steer a nationally owned
telco in a macro-economic sensible direction, with private owned companies
often micro-economics get in the way ;) )
> I do like the idea of a benevolent and all wise regulator that can move
> society forward.
> I just don't see it in the U.S. We seem to struggle with a functional
> Congress that can govern and and ethically based SCOTUS which are not nearly
> as nuanced as technology and the ongoing digital transformation.
[SM] Yes, given the apparent disfunction and vitriol between the two
sides on the last decade getting things done for the future efficiently and
bipartisanly looks a bit bleak... nasty as from my perspective the US system is
essentially "designed/evolved" to operate with two opposed parties that still
manage to get things done together by compromising.
> Today, the FCC can only regulate decaying affiliate broadcast news and stays
> silent about "news" distortions despite an insurrection that still threatens
> the Republic.
> Sorry to lose confidence in them but we need to see the world as it is.
[SM] I am with you here, the US media landscape looks quite hellish
from over here (not that we do not have our own issues with increasing
polarization in our society). Yet, what can the FCC do if Congress does not
agree on what to do here...
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting
>
> News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning
> broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate
> or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or
> overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted
> previously, the Commission generally will not intervene in these cases
> because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the
> journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public
> trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The
> FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act
> against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for
> news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting,
> such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct
> personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the
> intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be
> evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the
> news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not
> intervene.
[SM] I guess as noted the first amendment to the constitution is a
pretty big issue here, making it hard to interject in cases that are not clear
beyond a reasonable doubt... IMHO the real solution is making sure people are
well-educated enough to see though the cheap attempts of manipulating opinions,
but that might be hoping too much, and certainly is not a short term solution...
Sebastian
>
> Bob
>
>> Hi Bob,
>> thanks for the interesting discussion, I am learning a lot! I am
>> unsure whether the following is too direct
>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 18:37, Robert McMahon <rjmcma...@rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Sebastian,
>>> The U.S. of late isn't very good with regulatory that motivates investment
>>> into essential comm infrastructure. It seems to go the other way,
>>> regulatory triggers under investment, a tragedy of the commons.
>> [SM] My personal take on "tragedy of the commons" is that this is an
>> unfortunate framing that tries to muddy the waters. What "tragedy of
>> the commons" boils down to in insufficient or insufficiently enforced
>> regulation. The tragic part is that we theoretically already know how
>> to avoid that...
>>> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to contract
>>> carriage, and special access rate regulation has been removed.
>> [SM] Clearly sub-optimal regulation at play here that leaves obvious
>> lucrative alternate pathways outside of the regulated component... the
>> solution clearly would have been to put wireless under regulation as
>> well (either immediately or as a pre-declared response to insufficient
>> fiwed wire access plant maintenance and built-out). Then again easy to
>> say now...
>>> The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract carriage.
>> [SM] At least in Germany without good justification, once an access
>> network is large enough to stymie growth of competitors by sheer size
>> it needs to be put under regulations (assuming we actually desire
>> competition in the internet access market*). Letting such players
>> escape regulation is doubly problematic:
>> a) it results in anti-competitive market consolidation in the hands of
>> those players.
>> b) it puts the other (incumbent) players subject to regulatory action
>> at a clear disadvantage.
>> *) IMHO we will never get meaningful infrastructure competition in the
>> access network though, too few players to land us anyway outside of
>> monopoly/oligopoly regime...
>>> And they are upgrading today.
>>> The tech companies providing content & services are doing fine too and have
>>> enough power to work things out with the ISPs directly.
>> [SM] Yes and no, few ISPs if any are willing to try to strong arm
>> Google/Facebook/Apple/... but smaller players do fall pray to
>> sufficiently large ISPs playing games to sell access to their
>> eye-balls (see e.g. the carefully and competently managed
>> under-peering Deutsche Telekom (DT) does with the other T1-ISPs to
>> "encourage" all content providers to also buy direct access t the
>> Deutsche Telekom, technically billed as "transit", but far above
>> alternative transit that few content providers will use this nominal
>> transit to reach anything but Telekom eye-balls, but I digress.
>> However DT did not invent that technique but learned from AT&T and
>> Verizon*).
>> *) Only a few ISPs can really pull this off, as you need to be
>> essentially transit-free yourself, otherwise your own Transit provider
>> will allow others to reach you over typically not congested links. But
>> as SwissCom and Deutsche Telekom demonstrated in the past, if you then
>> collude with your Transit provider you might still be able to play
>> such games. Side-note in Germany DT is forced by law to allow
>> resellers on its copper plant so end-customers unhappy with DT's
>> peering policy can actually change ISP and some do, but not enough to
>> hinder DT from trying this approach.
>> In addition DT together with other European ex-monopoly telecoms
>> lobbies the EU commission hard to force big tech to pay for access
>> network build out in Germany... Now, I do have sympathies for
>> appropriately taxing big tech in those countries they generate
>> revenue, but not to line the coffers of telecoms for a service they
>> were already paid for by their end-customers.
>>> The undeserved areas do need support.
>> [SM] I fully agree! We should give all regions and access links the
>> same equitable starting point to participate in the digital society.
>>> The BEAD monies may help. I think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL.
>> [SM] My take here is that FTTH is inevitable as the next step sooner
>> or later. But for today's needs DSL would do just fine... except for
>> rural areas moving outdoor DSLAMs close enough to the customers to
>> allow acceptable access capacity is likely almost as expensive (if not
>> more expensive due to the active DSLAM tech) as not stopping with the
>> fiber at the potential outdoor DSLAM location, but putting it all the
>> way to the end-customers.
>> However dark fibers in the ground are only half the problem, we still
>> should allow for meaningful competition over these fibers in offering
>> internet access services, as one thig we know about the free market
>> is, it works better the more different players we have on the supply
>> and demand side. (For internet access the demand side is not the
>> problem, but the supply side is where we need to take steps to get
>> over what Rosenworcel described as only 20% of US households have
>> actual choice of broadband ISPs).
>> Regards
>> Sebastian
>> P.S.: I am sure that in essence we pretty much agree, we differ a bit
>> in how we want to reach the goal, but that allows for a healthy
>> discussion.
>>> Bob
>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <moell...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> Hi Bob,
>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain
>>> <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>> Everybody abandoned my local loop. Twisted pair from multiple decades ago
>>> into antiquated, windowless COs with punch blocks, with no space nor
>>> latency advantage for colocated content & compute, seems to have killed it
>>> off.
>>> [SM] Indeed, throughput for DSL is inversely proportional to loop length,
>>> so providing 'acceptable' capacity requires sufficiently short wire runs
>>> from DSLAM to CPE, and that in turn means moving DSLAMs closer to the end
>>> users... which in a densely populated area works well, but in a less
>>> densely populated area becomes costly fast. And doing so will only make
>>> sense if you get enough customers on such an 'outdoor DSLAM' so might work
>>> for the first to built out, but becomes prohibitively unattractive for
>>> other ISP later. However terminating the loops in the field clears up lots
>>> of spaces in the COs... not that anybody over here moved much compute into
>>> these... (there exist too many COs to make that an attractive proposition
>>> in spite of all the hype about moving compute to the edge). As is a few
>>> well connected data centers for compute seem to work well enough...
>>> I suspect in some towns one can buy out the local loop copper with just a
>>> promise of maintenance.
>>> [SM] A clear sign of regulatory failure to me, maintenance of the copper
>>> plant inherited from Bell should never have been left to the ISPs to decide
>>> about...
>>> The whole CLEC open the loop to competitive access seems to have failed per
>>> costs, antiquated technology, limited colocation, an outdated waveguide
>>> (otherwise things like CDDI would have won over Cat 5), and market reasons.
>>> The early ISPs didn't collocate, they bought T1s and E1s and connected the
>>> TDM to statistical multiplexing - no major investment there either.
>>> The RBOCs, SBC (now AT&T) & and VZ went to contract carriage and wireless
>>> largely because of the burdens of title II per regulators not being able to
>>> create an investment into the OSPs. The 2000 blow up was kinda real.
>>> [SM] Again, I see no fault in title 2 here, but in letting ISPs of the hook
>>> on maintaining their copper plant or replace it with FTTH...
>>> She starts out by complaining about trying to place her WiFi in the right
>>> place. That's like trying to share a flashlight. She has access to the FCC
>>> technology group full of capable engineers. They should have told her to
>>> install some structured wire, place more APs, set the carrier and turn down
>>> the power.
>>> [SM] I rather read this more as an attempt to built a report with the
>>> audience over a shared experience and less as a problem report ;)
>>> My wife works in the garden now using the garden AP SSID with no issues. My
>>> daughter got her own carrier too per here Dad dedicating a front end module
>>> for her distance learning needs. I think her story to justify title II
>>> regulation is a bit made up.
>>> [SM] Hmm, while covid19 lockdown wasn't the strongest example, I agree, I
>>> see no good argument for keeping essential infrastructure like internet
>>> access in private hands without appropriate oversight. Especially given the
>>> numbers for braodband choice for customers, clearly the market is not going
>>> to solve the issues at hand.
>>> Also, communications have been essential back before the rural free
>>> delivery of mail in 1896. Nothing new here other than hyperbole to justify
>>> a 5 member commission acting as the single federal regulator over 140M
>>> households and 33M businesses, almost none of which have any idea about the
>>> complexities of the internet.
>>> [SM] But the access network is quite different than the internet's core, so
>>> not being experts on the core seems acceptable, no? And even 5 members is
>>> clearly superior to no oversight at all?
>>> I'm not buying it and don't want to hand the keys to the FCC who couldn't
>>> protect journalism nor privacy. Maybe start there, looking at what they
>>> didn't do versus blaming contract carriage for a distraction?
>>> [SM] I can speak to the FCC as regulatory agency, but over here IMHO the
>>> national regulatory agency does a decent job arbitrating between the
>>> interests of both sides.
>>> https://about.usps.com/who/profile/history/rural-free-delivery.htm#:~:text=On%20October%201%2C%201896%2C%20rural,were%20operating%20in%2029%20states.
>>> Bob
>>> My understanding, though I am not 100% certain, is that the baby bells
>>> lobbied to have the CLEC equal access provisions revoked/gutted.
>>> Before this, the telephone companies were required to provide access
>>> to the "last mile" of the copper lines and the switches at wholesale
>>> costs. Once the equal access provisions were removed, the telephone
>>> companies started charging the small phone and DSL providers close to
>>> the retail price for access. The CLEC DSL providers could not stay in
>>> business when they charged a customer $35 / month for Internet service
>>> while the telephone company charged the DSL ISP $35 / month for
>>> access.
>>> ---- On Sat, 07 Oct 2023 17:22:10 -0400 Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote ---
>>> I have a lot to unpack from this:
>>> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397257A1.pdf
>>> the first two on my mind from 2005 are: "FCC adopted its first open
>>> internet policy" and "Competitiveness" As best as I recall, (and
>>> please correct me), this led essentially to the departure of all the
>>> 3rd party DSL providers from the field. I had found something
>>> referencing this interpretation that I cannot find right now, but I do
>>> clearly remember all the DSL services you could buy from in the early
>>> 00s, and how few you can buy from now. Obviously there are many other
>>> possible root causes.
>>> DSL continued to get better and evolve, but it definately suffers from
>>> many reports of degraded copper quality, but does an estimate exist
>>> for how much working DSL is left?
>>> Q0) How much DSL is in the EU?
>>> Q1) How much DSL is left in the USA?
>>> Q2) What form is it? (VDSL, etc?)
>>> Did competition in DSL vanish because of or not of an FCC related order?
>>> --
>>> Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
>>> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________
Nnagain mailing list
Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
