My Internet is awesome

[anodos]

It's always seemed to me that it was unfortunate that complicated layers like GPON got a foothold. From my point of view, which is admittedly a bit ethercentric, I see lots of cable TV dist amps and VDSL pedestals all over the place and they seem like way too big and way too frequent. LX always struck me as a useful balance between inexpensive and flexible. Wire up a neighborhood (or several) with FTTH, bring them to something like a SLC hut, and then run big backhaul from there, preferably on a redundant loop of some sort.

Of course, that would actually require investment when they could just sit back and enjoy the benefits of their defacto local monopolies.

 

[jgreco]

Of course, that would actually require investment when they could just sit back and enjoy the benefits of their defacto local monopolies.

Well, there's some truth to that, of course. The real problem is that even an idiot can see that providing a last mile infrastructure involves some major up-front costs (capex), but down the road it has very minimal opex. Ethernet won the networking wars, not because it was actually better, but because it was flexible and because it got cheap.

The cable company around here has just finished screwing people for a third time. In 2012 they started charging $3.95 a month for a cable modem (and usually an ancient Motorola Surfboard at that). In 2013 they jacked it up to $5.99 a month. Last year they raised it to $8. This sort of thing pisses me off, so when they first introduced the fee, I started giving away SB6141 cable modems to friends and family. Of course, the modem rental fee is just a total rip-off because the ancient Surfboards were depreciated long ago.

Likewise, AT&T just discontinued contracts. This isn't a pro-consumer move. I used to be able to get my phones at a subsidized rate (~$400 off) in exchange for committing to two more years. Now I pay the same rate but I also have to pay full price for the phone upgrade. It's effectively a rate hike for those of us who were routinely updating phones.

As someone who was a driver in the early era of Internet in the region here, I am dismayed at how badly the monopolies have managed to sidetrack Internet progress here in the US in the name of profit.

 

[Ericloewe]

It's always seemed to me that it was unfortunate that complicated layers like GPON got a foothold. From my point of view, which is admittedly a bit ethercentric, I see lots of cable TV dist amps and VDSL pedestals all over the place and they seem like way too big and way too frequent. LX always struck me as a useful balance between inexpensive and flexible. Wire up a neighborhood (or several) with FTTH, bring them to something like a SLC hut, and then run big backhaul from there, preferably on a redundant loop of some sort.

Curiously, they run duplex singlemode fiber from the optical splitter to the wall socket, in new installations. Maybe it was just the cheapest cable they could buy (they previously used Corning stuff).

I doubt they'll be trying something different from GPON anytime soon, since they can completely ditch copper while still providing TV over RF. It's a big selling point, because the set top boxes around here are your typical ISP scam (old platform, 5 bucks a month that can be negotiated away in exchange for cellular contracts, no option to buy one outright or supply your own...).

 

[jgreco]

I haven't looked at this sort of stuff lately, but if it is a passive splitter, singlemode would be the obvious choice.

 

[Ericloewe]

I haven't looked at this sort of stuff lately, but if it is a passive splitter, singlemode would be the obvious choice.

Yeah, it's definitely singlemode all the way. The curious part is that they run a pair of fibers outside.

 

[jgreco]

I must be missing your point. How is that curious? I would imagine the CPE could then be placed someplace convenient to the end user, with power and where connectivity was needed, like by the computer, or by the TV.

 

[Ericloewe]

I must be missing your point. How is that curious? I would imagine the CPE could then be placed someplace convenient to the end user, with power and where connectivity was needed, like by the computer, or by the TV.

Well, they run two fibers instead of one, like they used to. As I said, it's probably because the cable was just cheaper, but it would be interesting to see a new service based on Ethernet instead of GPON.

 

[Black Ninja]

The sad thing is that internet started in US. Now is 68th place behind major countries and keep falling behind. They are selling us cloud services, streaming, online backup, etc while having 5GB data caps on mobile internet.It's like the evolution in reverse. I didn't realize how bad it is till I saw how much ahead others are.

 

[jgreco]

The problem is that the incumbent communications companies have done a fine job of screwing us. The National Information Infrastructure (or "Information Superhighway") was a 1991 policy intended to bring 45Mbps symmetrical fiber to the household, on top of which your choice of various digital services, including Internet services from your choice of competing ISP's.

Briefly, to sum this up not totally accurately, the telecoms were to build a fiber network which they'd sell access to on a wholesale basis. Kinda like FiOS but not locked to Verizon. The incumbent telecoms understood that there wouldn't be a lot of money but there would be a lot of expense, so they asked for, and got, tax breaks and deregulation and other incentives worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, almost immediately, they began the process of backsliding on what was promised. The biggest point that needed backslide on, was, from their point of view, open access to their networks (after all, they wanted to also profit!) so they began a complex process that would ultimately lead in regulators in each state conceding that competition wasn't that important and that they wouldn't have to sell wholesale services to other providers. The other one was that they really didn't want to provide fiber, because, y'know, they already had copper in the ground and on the poles, and, can't, we, like, find a way to use that, even if maybe it's a little slower? Again, they won out on that. So the American public, for approximately $400 billion dollars in incentives, ended up underwriting substandard DSL and cable that didn't even reach every doorstep. That's more than $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

 

[anodos]

The problem is that the incumbent communications companies have done a fine job of screwing us. The National Information Infrastructure (or "Information Superhighway") was a 1991 policy intended to bring 45Mbps symmetrical fiber to the household, on top of which your choice of various digital services, including Internet services from your choice of competing ISP's.

Briefly, to sum this up not totally accurately, the telecoms were to build a fiber network which they'd sell access to on a wholesale basis. Kinda like FiOS but not locked to Verizon. The incumbent telecoms understood that there wouldn't be a lot of money but there would be a lot of expense, so they asked for, and got, tax breaks and deregulation and other incentives worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, almost immediately, they began the process of backsliding on what was promised. The biggest point that needed backslide on, was, from their point of view, open access to their networks (after all, they wanted to also profit!) so they began a complex process that would ultimately lead in regulators in each state conceding that competition wasn't that important and that they wouldn't have to sell wholesale services to other providers. The other one was that they really didn't want to provide fiber, because, y'know, they already had copper in the ground and on the poles, and, can't, we, like, find a way to use that, even if maybe it's a little slower? Again, they won out on that. So the American public, for approximately $400 billion dollars in incentives, ended up underwriting substandard DSL and cable that didn't even reach every doorstep. That's more than $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the country.

Regulatory capture at its finest.

 

[jgreco]

Regulatory capture at its finest.

It'd be hilarious if we had the collective will as a nation to go all eminent domain on their sorry butts and just take the last mile infrastructure out of their hands, since, y'know, we basically paid for it.

 

[Arwen]

Alot of people forget that the U.S. is a huge country, with 3rd largest population.
Wiring up a modest sized Europeon or Asian country with FTTH is both simpler
and cheaper.

 

[Black Ninja]

I absolutely agree on both statements the green gentlemen posted above.:) I knew he was very knowledgeable person on the computer side of things , but I didn't know He was so well informed on other fronts.
This is exactly what is happening and then the reason that is still going on. I wonder if we got the same source of information on this one.;)

Anyways it give me a great pleasure to see that more people actually understand what is going on , instead of speaking nonsense out of ignorance. So there is hope I guess.

 

[Black Ninja]

Alot of people forget that the U.S. is a huge country, with 3rd largest population.
Wiring up a modest sized Europeon or Asian country with FTTH is both simpler
and cheaper.

Respectfully, I would so much disagree with you. But I will leave it there.:)

 

[jgreco]

Alot of people forget that the U.S. is a huge country, with 3rd largest population.
Wiring up a modest sized Europeon or Asian country with FTTH is both simpler
and cheaper.

Sorry, that's a load of telco apologist claptrap. Those of us who were among the first wave ISP's saw that it would be an expensive undertaking, but it wasn't that aspect that was a real problem. The real problem was that there's a natural need for a last mile monopoly, or at best, a duopoly. The people behind the NII understood that, which is why the telecoms were offered four hundred billion dollars in incentives and new opportunities to compensate them for their troubles. When the telecoms figured out that they might be able to actually provide BOTH that last mile infrastructure (not lucrative except for the incentives) AND the stuff riding on top ($$$$$$), they first argued to get the right to sell "retail" services on top of their own networks, which is probably fine, except that then they had an incentive to screw anyone else who was trying to sell services on top of their network.

Please note that I'm one of the people who "brought the Internet" to my area. I have proposals from Ameritech, our local ILEC, offering to allow us to sell DSL services on their network. The wholesale cost that they offered us, per line, was actually greater than the retail cost THEY were charging subscribers... that's not competition. That's not selling at reasonable cost.

So basically what happened next was that they made it very difficult for competitive local carriers (CLEC's) to compete. What? Your customer's line is down? We'll send a tech out to look at that. Two weeks from next Tuesday.

Then they got the regulatory permission to not sell to competitors (FiOS, U-verse). See all the battles where they basically said they weren't going to provide the service if there was a threat of competition. They said there was no practical way to provide space for competitors. Or they just refused.

All those outlying areas where the population density wasn't high enough to be "profitable"? Well EFF THEM. Their fault for living out in the sticks! Well, that's right up until some municipality gets peeved at that attitude. Look at what happened in Monticello. First, they were told "no high speed for you, suckers". So then they went to build their own. And TDS sued them to stall them, and suddenly TDS was installing fiber in their town. Because of course if a bunch of municipalities get the idea that they can do their own Internet, that's the death of companies like TDS. So even though Monticello was building their own, suddenly TDS was in there ALSO building fiber, basically to screw over the bondholders and the city, to set an example for other municipalities that might get out of line. When THAT didn't work, then Charter Cable joined the fray, engaging in what many have called predatory pricing.

Now, a little reality in the situation here. Last mile infrastructure is difficult and expensive. It is even more expensive in the outlying areas where there isn't a lot of population density to drive for-profit investment.

We can address these issues, as we addressed rural electrification years ago, and rural telephony. We have been successful with those sorts of things, no reason to think we can't do the same for networking. In fact, today it's simpler, because most people would agree that IP is the winner of the protocol wars. What we lack is the political will to bring this country into the modern era and get out from under the thumb of those companies who have become very profitable providing crappy service for an unreasonable price.

So with all that said, I respecfully call the proposition that "the US is a huge country" a huge load of bullchips. It certainly is, but that's not what's holding us back. It's the lobbyists and the big money interests who are preventing progress at every turn in order to continue reaping as much profit as they can from as little investment as possible, keeping competition out of the equation.

 

[gpsguy]

As you should already know, the green man is very, very smart.

My guess is that these issues have impacted his business opportunities.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Black Ninja]

Alot of people forget that the U.S. is a huge country, with 3rd largest population.
Wiring up a modest sized Europeon or Asian country with FTTH is both simpler
and cheaper.

You don't work for "the cable company" ,do you ? It does sound very much like something they would use as excuse.:)

 

[Black Ninja]

As you should already know, the green man is very, very smart.

My guess is that these issues have impacted his business opportunities.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps you are right. That make sense , from what I am hearing.

 

[Black Ninja]

Sorry, that's a load of telco apologist claptrap. Those of us who were among the first wave ISP's saw that it would be an expensive undertaking, but it wasn't that aspect that was a real problem. The real problem was that there's a natural need for a last mile monopoly, or at best, a duopoly. The people behind the NII understood that, which is why the telecoms were offered four hundred billion dollars in incentives and new opportunities to compensate them for their troubles. When the telecoms figured out that they might be able to actually provide BOTH that last mile infrastructure (not lucrative except for the incentives) AND the stuff riding on top ($$$$$$), they first argued to get the right to sell "retail" services on top of their own networks, which is probably fine, except that then they had an incentive to screw anyone else who was trying to sell services on top of their network.

Please note that I'm one of the people who "brought the Internet" to my area. I have proposals from Ameritech, our local ILEC, offering to allow us to sell DSL services on their network. The wholesale cost that they offered us, per line, was actually greater than the retail cost THEY were charging subscribers... that's not competition. That's not selling at reasonable cost.

So basically what happened next was that they made it very difficult for competitive local carriers (CLEC's) to compete. What? Your customer's line is down? We'll send a tech out to look at that. Two weeks from next Tuesday.

Then they got the regulatory permission to not sell to competitors (FiOS, U-verse). See all the battles where they basically said they weren't going to provide the service if there was a threat of competition. They said there was no practical way to provide space for competitors. Or they just refused.

All those outlying areas where the population density wasn't high enough to be "profitable"? Well EFF THEM. Their fault for living out in the sticks! Well, that's right up until some municipality gets peeved at that attitude. Look at what happened in Monticello. First, they were told "no high speed for you, suckers". So then they went to build their own. And TDS sued them to stall them, and suddenly TDS was installing fiber in their town. Because of course if a bunch of municipalities get the idea that they can do their own Internet, that's the death of companies like TDS. So even though Monticello was building their own, suddenly TDS was in there ALSO building fiber, basically to screw over the bondholders and the city, to set an example for other municipalities that might get out of line. When THAT didn't work, then Charter Cable joined the fray, engaging in what many have called predatory pricing.

Now, a little reality in the situation here. Last mile infrastructure is difficult and expensive. It is even more expensive in the outlying areas where there isn't a lot of population density to drive for-profit investment.

We can address these issues, as we addressed rural electrification years ago, and rural telephony. We have been successful with those sorts of things, no reason to think we can't do the same for networking. In fact, today it's simpler, because most people would agree that IP is the winner of the protocol wars. What we lack is the political will to bring this country into the modern era and get out from under the thumb of those companies who have become very profitable providing crappy service for an unreasonable price.

So with all that said, I respecfully call the proposition that "the US is a huge country" a huge load of bullchips. It certainly is, but that's not what's holding us back. It's the lobbyists and the big money interests who are preventing progress at every turn in order to continue reaping as much profit as they can from as little investment as possible, keeping competition out of the equation.

One word:Exactly !

There is no so such a thing as a competition anymore. The "cable company" has the monopoly and nothing good will came out of that for the customers. They have so much money they will buy the "competition", that's cheaper than compete with them. They don't have to compete for customers (new or existing), they already "have" the market. So they don't want to spend more money. Now all they do is figuring new ways to sell us less service for more money. That's what I think about the competition.

But talking about some hope: I wounder what do you think about title 2 reclassification that happen recently. Do you think anything good will came out of it and open the doors for small independent ISP to arrive. Which will help us tremendously.

 

[jgreco]

As you should already know, the green man is very, very smart.

That illusion comes with age and experience.

My guess is that these issues have impacted his business opportunities.

Perhaps. Before the ISP thing became popular, I was providing access to Internet e-mail and Usenet news, UUCP connections, and access to a UNIX computing environment, for free to the region. One other guy was doing something similar, IIRC, but didn't last very long. Then commercial ISP's started to pop up but needed expertise to set up lots of the stuff that I'd been doing for quite some time. So I ended up doing a lot of consulting.

I very much enjoy working with non-stodgy companies with lots of interesting and clever people. That was something there was a surplus of in the '90's. These days, not so much.

I never really set out to be rich, so despite being early to the Internet party, I never became an Internet millionaire. I wanted to do fun things, and be profitable enough that I could pay for fun toys, and not work myself prematurely to a heart attack. I've been blessed to have been able to have been doing just that for more than a quarter of a century now.