LARIAT and Comcast not same problem

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Dave Burstein [daveb () dslprime com]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:40 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: LARIAT and Comcast not same problem

Dave

Brett's comments are perfectly appropriate for a small U.S. rural wireless carrier, and totally off base for a large 
DSL or cable provider like Comcast or Verizon.  Protecting rural service is a battle worth fighting (possibly directly 
excluding small carriers from some regs, unbundling rural fiber backhaul, or efficiently using the $300M in the 
current) but it shouldn't be used to make bad policy for everyone.  Most small rural carriers pay literally ten times 
as much for bandwidth as a large carrier with easy connections. Large carriers pay $8-15 for the megabit of bandwidth 
that costs $100 in Wyoming, and save even more by peering most of their traffic. In addition, wireless total throughput 
is typically 70-90% less than a current wired network, making wireless solutions more expensive and harder to require. 
(Although I'd mostly would) Instead of limiting what Brett's customers can do on the net, I suggest going to the root 
of the problem: high rural costs.

Since so many of the FCC filings got the facts wrong I'd like to point out a few things I believe proven. These do not 
force a pro or con on the subject.

It is possible to run a large broadband network without traffic shaping like Comcast, because Verizon, AT&T, and 
Free.fr do it. A key Comcast claim in the FCC filing is that this is impossible. Source: Verizon SVP Tom Tauke, AT&T 
SVP Jim Cicconi, AT&T CEO testifying at the Senate, numerous technical sources.

Internet growth rates per subscriber are little changed for the last five years at 35-45%, not increasing or a crisis 
brought on by video. Source: Odlyzko's excellent MINTS page and Comcast's filing with the 40% number for 2007

Over that same period, the costs of delivering that bandwidth have gone down at a Moore's Law pace of 25-40% (switches, 
routers, etc.) The result is that the carrier's cost of bandwidth has been flat to down for five years. The total 
bandwidth cost is typically $1/month/customer. Multiple sources

It's probably impossible to build a network that never degrades even in emergencies like 9/11 or Katrina. It is 
possible to affordably build a network that virtually never seriously degrades even demanding applications like 
highquality web video. Evidence: Free.fr, Verizon FIOS, AT&T U-Verse, and my home DSL line do that today, by company 
claim and all reports I've found.

My conclusion, which allows one to be in favor or opposed to NN, is that neutral networks aren't free, but are 
practical at a definable price.

    I respect the opinion of Dave and others that getting the government involved could create even more problems. My 
opinion is grounded on my research that almost any likely scenario puts the maximum cost of upgrading to a neutral 
network less than $1/month, and it's easy to project costs of a few dimes on a $30-50 month service. I believe that's a 
good tradeoff for the customer and system.

Dave Burstein
Editor, DSL Prime

-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com