Hi Bob. On 10 October 2023 02:13:18 CEST, Robert McMahon <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Sebastian, > >The NRE per chip starts at $100M. It's multiplr semiconductors that now define >a networks and data centers capabilitied. A small municipal overbuilder is not >a market maker.
[SM] Sure, a small outfit is essentially forced to use off the shelf components, though they might innovate a bit on the software side, like libreqos. But for one of the biggest current challenges, getting fiber out to all residences/businesses is that really an issue? > >So yes, an overbuilder that can't fund ASIC NRE needs to be intimately aware >of both market dynamics and the state of engineering, of today, tomorrow and >the next 20-30 years as that's typically the life of the municipal bonds. [SM] In a dark fiber model, this will not matter too much, no? For a lighted fiber approach 20-30 years require 2-4 technology generations which seems hard to predict... then again the biggest cost is likely the fiber access network, the active tech might by financable out of the cash flow? > >Investors aren't govt. bond holders and investor owned companies can take more >risk. If low latency offerings don't increase ARPU, the investors lose. If it >works, they win. Big difference. [SM] Building that fiber plant seems like a pretty save bet to me, allowing for longterm financing. Interestigly over here some insurrances got into the FTTH build-out game, obviously considering it a viable long term investment, though population density is higher here than in the US likely affecting cost and amortisation periods... > >Bob > >On Oct 9, 2023, 12:40 AM, at 12:40 AM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> >wrote: >>Hi Bob, >> >>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 22:44, rjmcmahon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, I get it. I think we're just too early for a structural >>separation model in comm infrastructure. >> >>[SM] I see one reason why we should not wait, and that is the >>future-proofness of the eventually reached FTTH-deployment... >> >> >>> >>> I think when we get to mix & match DSP/optics and point to point >>fiber in the OSPs, as done in data centers, it may change. But today >>it's PON at best which implies a communal decision process vs >>individual one. >> >>[SM] There are IMHO two components to the AON (Point to >>MultiPoint/PtMP)/PON (Point to Point/PtP) debate: >>a) PONs are cheaper to operate, as they require less power (on the ISP >>side) and space (depending on where the passive splitters are located). >>b) Structural PONs with splitters out in the field (to realize space >>saving in the CO) are less flexible, one can always operate a PtMP >>plant as PON, but converting a structural PON to AON likely requires >>putting new fibers into the ground. >> >>The first part is something I am not too concerned about, the coming >>FTTH access network is going to operate for decades, so I could not >>care less about what active technology is going to be used in the next >>decade (I assume that ISPs tryto keep the same tech operational for ~ a >>decade, but for PON that might be too pessimistic), the second part is >>different though... micro-economics favor PtMP with splitters in the >>field (lower up front cost* AND less potential for regulatory >>intervention**) while the macro-economic perspective makes PtP more >>attractive (offering more flexibility over the expected life time of >>multiple decades). >> >> >> >>*) One big item, the cost for actually deploying the fiber to is not >>all that sensitive, if you put fiber into the ground the traditional >>way, typically the cost of the earth works dominates over e.g. the cost >>of the individual fibers (not that this would stop bean-counter types >>to still minimize the number of fiber cables...). >> >>**) With PtP the potential exists that a regulator (likely not the FCC) >>could force an ISP to offer dark-fibers to end customers at wholesale >>prices, with PtMP the ISP having build out likely will stay in control >>of the active tech in each segment (might be forced to offer bitstream >>access***) so potential competitors will not be able to offer >>better/faster technology on the shared fiber. That is some of the PONs >>are backward compatible and in theory on the same PON tree one ISP >>might be operating GPON while another ISP might theoreticallu offer >>XGS-PON on the same segment, but I think this is a rather theoretical >>construct unlikely to happen quantitatively... >> >>***) Not only control of the tech, but offering bitstream access likely >>means a larger wholesale price as well. >> >> >>> Communal actions, as seen in both LUS and Glasgow, can take decades >>and once done, are slow to change. >> >> [SM] LUS already offer symmetric 10G links... they do not seem to be >>lagging behind, the main criticism seems to be that they are somewhat >>more expensive than the big ISPs, which is not all that surprising >>given that they will not be able to leverage scale effects all that >>much simply by being small... Also a small ISP likely can not afford a >>price war with a much larger company (that can afford to serve below >>cost in areas it competes with smaller ISPs in an attempt to drive >>those smaller ones out of the market, after which prices likely >>increase again). >> >> >>> The decision process time vs tech timelines exacerbate this. Somebody >>has to predict the future - great for investors & speculators, not so >>for regulators looking backwards. >> >> [SM] I am not convinced that investors/speculators actually do a much >>better job predicting the future, just look at how much VC is wadted on >>hare-brained schemes like NFTs/crypto currencies and the like? >> >>> Also, engineering & market cadence matching is critical and neither >>LUS nor Glasgow solved that. >> >> [SM] But do they need to solve that? Would it not be enough to simply >>keep offering something that in their service area is considered good >>enough by the customers? Whether they do or do not, I can not tell. >> >> >>Regards >> Sebastian >> >> >>> >>> Bob >>>> Hi Bob, >>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 21:27, rjmcmahon <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>>>> Hi Sebastian, >>>>> Here's a good link on Glasgow, KY likely the first U.S. muni >>network started around 1994. It looks like a one and done type >>investment. Their offering was competitive for maybe a decade and now >>seems to have fallen behind for the last few decades. >>>>> https://www.glasgowepb.com/internet-packages/ >>>>> https://communitynets.org/content/birth-community-broadband-video >>>> [SM] Looks like they are using DOCSIS and are just about to go >>fiber; >>>> not totally unexpected, it takes awhile to amortize the cost of say >>a >>>> CMTS to go DOCSIS and only after that period you make some profit, >>so >>>> many ISPs will be tempted to operate the active gear a bit longer >>>> longer after break even, as with new active gear revenue will likely >>>> not generate surplus. The challenge is to decide when to upgrade... >>>> My preferred model however is not necessarily having a communal ISP >>>> that sells internet access services (I am not against that), but >>have >>>> a communal built-out of the access network and centralize the lines >>>> (preferably fiber) in a few large enough local IXs, so internet >>access >>>> providers only need to bring their head-ends and upstream links to >>>> those locations to be able to offer services. In the beginning it >>>> makes probably sense to also offer some sort of GPON/XGSPON bit >>stream >>>> access to reduce the up-front cost for ISPs that expect to serve >>only >>>> a small portion of customers in such an IX, but that is pure >>>> speculation.... The real idea is to keep those things that will >>result >>>> in a natural monopoly to form in communal hands (that already manage >>>> other such monopoly infrastructure anyway) and then try to use the >>>> fact that there is no local 800lb Gorilla ISP owning most lines to >>try >>>> to create a larger pool of competing ISPs to light up the fiber >>>> infrastructure... That is I am fine with a market solution, if we >>can >>>> assure the market to be big enough to actually deliver on its >>>> promises. >>>>> LUS is similar if this article is to be believed. >>https://thecurrentla.com/2023/column-lus-fiber-has-lost-its-edge/ >>>> [SM] The article notices that comparing things is hard... as the >>>> offers differ considerably from what alternate ISPs offer (e.g. LUS >>>> offers symmetric capacity for down- and upload) and the number >>>> compared seems to be the advertised price, which IIRC in the US is >>>> considerably smaller than what one happens to actually pay month per >>>> month due to additional fees and stuff... (in Germany prices for >>>> end-customers typically are "all inclusive prices", the amount of >>>> VAT/tax is shown singled out in the receipts, but the number we >>>> operate on is typically the final price, but then we have almost no >>>> local taxes that could apply). >>>>> The LUS NN site says there is no congestion on their fiber (GPON) >>so they don't need AQM or other congestion mgmt mechanisms which I find >>suspect. https://www.lusfiber.com/net-neutrality >>>> [SM] Actually intriguing, would I live in their area I would try >>them >>>> out, then I could report on the details here :) >>>> Browsing their documentation I am not a big fan of their volume >>limits >>>> though, I consider these to be absurd measures of control....(absurd >>>> in that they are too loosely coupled with the relevant measure for >>the >>>> actual cost). >>>>> This may demonstrate that technology & new requirements are moving >>too quickly for municipal approaches. >>>> [SM] That might well be true. I have no insight any more on how >>this >>>> affects commercial ISPs in the US either (I only tried two anyway >>>> sonic and charter) >>>>> Bob >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> The RBOCs eventually did overbuild. They used wireless and went to >>>>>> contract carriage, and special access rate regulation has been >>>>>> removed. The cable cos did HFC and have always been contract >>carriage. >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> The undeserved areas do need support. The BEAD monies may help. I >>>>>> think these areas shouldn't be relegated to DSL. >>>>>> Bob >>>>>> On Oct 8, 2023, at 2:38 AM, Sebastian Moeller <[email protected]> >>wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Bob, >>>>>>> On 8 October 2023 00:13:07 CEST, rjmcmahon via Nnagain >>>>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>multiplexingThe FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a >>most heinous act against the public interest.” >>>>>>> - 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 >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>> ------------------------- >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Nnagain mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
