[opendtv] Re: F.C.C. Is Deluged With Comments on Net Neutrality Rules
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: OpenDTV Mail List <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 09:31:16 -0400
On Jul 19, 2014, at 7:54 PM, Albert Manfredi <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Tradeoff, Craig. We've been over this already. Heavy investment in core,
> mitigated by installation of mirrored edge servers, and last mile investments.
Sorry Bert, but these are not trade-offs. Mirrored edge servers take a load off
of the WAN, but do not solve the QOS problem if the last mile cannot handle the
number of streams, and QOS of those streams. Obviously this is dependent on the
infrastructure of the ISP.
DSL is a dedicated link, so it can deliver good QOS, UP TO the peak bit rate of
the link. Unfortunately this is not very high in practice. Some DSL services
can now sustain 6-8 Mbps, which is adequate for one good quality stream. IF you
want multiple simultaneous streams good luck.
Cable is limited by the number of customers on the neighborhood loop, and the
number of downstream data channels they dedicate to that neighborhood. The
industry practice at this time is to put risers, fed by a fiber optic link,
into the neighborhoods to reduce the number of customers per local loop. This
is an expensive proposition, and will take years to build out to the point
where every home can have multiple simultaneous streams of HD quality. Edge
servers do not help solve this problem.
Edge servers take some of the load off of the interconnection points, the
routers that are currently being used to throttle the QOS of high bit rate
services like Netflix. That the ISP can get away with charging a service like
Netflix for improved QOS through these interconnection points is what one might
expect from a monopoly.
>
> I think you aren't getting the topology of passive networks (fiber or coax),
> and how edge servers feed directly into the passive networks' head-ends. The
> ISP doesn't have just one single head-end, Craig. And once again, cable
> companies which have coax connecting to homes can increase their bandwidth
> into individual homes by a huge amount, without having to actually enter the
> premises. They keep growing the fiber part of the HFC structure, but they
> don't need to deal with entering individual homes, as Verizon has to do with
> FiOS. So for the foreseeable future, cablecos are okay on this score. Saves
> them a lot of money.
This is just a bunch of hot air.
All services require a modem in the home. Whether the service provider
sells/rents and installs it, or you buy one and install it yourself, really is
a side issue. The only valid point here is that most hopes are already wired
for cable, while Verizon needs to bring a fiber to the house and add the
required termination gear. Keep in mind that both Verizon and AT&T appear to be
giving up on fiber to the home deployments, preferring DSL over twisted pair
for now. They do not need to enter the home to provide this service - just
install a DSL modem and wireless router...
>
> To address the term "last mile." Yes, I'm sure that the improvements will be
> happening at less than literally "one mile" from homes in many cases, however
> avoiding having to schedule individual appointments with individual
> homeowners is what we're really talking about here.
NO we are not. What we are talking about is the cost to reply enough bandwidth
in every neighborhood to replace dedicated wires for TV (i.e. cable), with an
ISP service that can deliver 25 Mbps or more.
>
> My main point was, in any such debates, if people just harp on one aspect
> (net neutrality), without addressing the issues the opposition raises, then
> their case is not very convincing. So now, I think the legitimate cost
> concerns of the ISPs can be managed, and if they can't do so without playing
> self-serving games with competing content troves, the government should step
> in on consumers' behalf.
The upgrades to ISP service are happening at a rapid pace - this should be
expected, as U.S. homes are paying a premium for the ISP service they get, when
compared to many other parts of the world. It is clear that the last mile
problem will be solved, even if the government does nothing.
But Title II regulation is likely to help the entrenched players and keep the
cost to the consumer high.
>
>> Regulating ISP service under Title II may just entrench the ISP
>
>> oligopoly and let them maintain high profits while slowing the
>
>> investment in the last mile.
>
> A balanced risk. Not regulating under Title II would just entrench the old
> walled garden model, as we have clearly seen, and we don't know where else it
> would lead. I think the ISPs may not have needed more than "light touch"
> regulation in the past, especially not in the days of dial-up Internet, but
> things are obviously changing now.
The old walled garden model is not going away. It is moving to the Internet.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts: