From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp75.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp75.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D04793B29D; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:50:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=g001.emailsrvr.com; s=20190322-9u7zjiwi; t=1613926247; bh=O2FNlDVwDrDcX4XNw7QWkJpKacSXH+Uz9hvY/SV9Jbs=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:From; b=miJZKg11Ig6lwG1H7m90rLnX2GWo1BLSHGEEKt1wyJa/wm1iExJn6yhzLAGvWEDXy IIxfRftR8MY2ycwPmBcEcnEH1OTTK3aBX92HFjZ/QUordgUttgWsInb9SmWh9DQwhz T+PUvXkNjfalRXJePr609tLP1htypxlk8j6d9wwU= Received: from app19.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp2.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3116E43AD; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:50:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app19.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDC1E0047; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:50:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:50:47 -0500 (EST) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 11:50:47 -0500 (EST) From: "David P. Reed" To: "Dave Taht" Cc: "bloat" , "cerowrt-devel" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20210221115047000000_51607" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: X-Client-IP: 209.6.10.161 Message-ID: <1613926247.111332171@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/18.1.15-RC X-Classification-ID: 48a9dde8-7329-4fd7-98da-57f11dac6912-1-1 Subject: Re: [Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] a start at the FCC filing X-BeenThere: bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: General list for discussing Bufferbloat List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2021 16:50:47 -0000 ------=_20210221115047000000_51607 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0AThis is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow.=0A =0AI= strongly recommend trying to find a way to make sure it doesn't become a p= roposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisans. (this is hard fo= r me, because my politics are more aligned with the Left than with the self= -described conservatives and right-wing libertarians.=0A =0AThis is based o= n personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing through 2012 or so wi= th two issues:=0A =0A1. Open Spectrum (using computational radio networking= to make a scalable framework for dense wireless extremely wideband interne= tworking). I along with a small number of others started this as a non-part= isan effort. It became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be = a socialist taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it becam= e an issue where a subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decided to= make it a wedge issue in political form. (It should be noted that during t= his time, a Republican Secretary of Commerce took up the idea of making UWB= legal, and fought off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting regul= ation was ineffective because it was too weak to be usable).=0A =0A2. Netwo= rk Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really about keeping= Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about what packets th= ey would deliver and what ones they would not. The design of the Internet w= as completely based on open carriage of all packets without the routers bil= ling for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again, for a variety of = reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship politically - suc= h that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be promoting both Democr= atic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, the case for Open In= ternet is not primarily political. It's about scalability of the infrastruc= ture and the ability to carry Internet packets over any concatenation of pa= ths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That "mutual benefit" concept does s= eem to be alien to a certain kind of individualist libertarian cult thinkin= g that is a small subset of Republican Party membership).=0A =0AIf this bec= omes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will encounter resistance,= both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction, and also from the cor= porate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue Dog Democrats where tel= ecom providers provide the largest quantity of funding to those Democrats).= =0A =0ASome "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their "pl= atform" as a partisan issue.=0A =0AIt may feel nice to have some of them on= your side. Like you aren't alone. But by accepting this "help" on this iss= ue, you may be guaranteeing its failure.=0A =0AIn a world where compromise = is allowed to generate solutions to problems, polarizing would not be effec= tive to kill a good idea, rather merely raising the issue would lead to rec= ognizing the problem is important and joint work to create a solution. In 1= 975, the Internet was not partisan. Its designers weren't party members or = loyalists. We were solving a problem of creating a scalable, efficient alte= rnative to the "Bell System" model of communications where every piece of g= ear got involved in deciding what to do with each bit of information, where= there were "voice bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and "residential = bits", and every piece of equipment had to be told everything about each bi= ts (through call setup).=0A =0ABut today, compromise is not considered poss= ible, even at the level of defining the problem!=0A =0ASo this simple archi= tectural approach to clearing out the brush that has grown like weeds throu= ghout the Internet, especially at the "access provider" will become politic= al. =0A =0ASince in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and r= evenues to edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate pipes= , the natural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumb= ents, funded by equipment providers for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lu= cent and their competitors), with Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats carryi= ng their water. That's tthe likely polarization axis. I can say that Progre= ssive members of the Democratic Party will love to have a new issue to rais= e funds. I can make the argument that it should be supported by Republicans= or Independents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats and Progre= ssives, and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them.=0A =0AEither way= , you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party Loyalist issue.= =0A =0ASo please look that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support in the = mouth when it comes.=0A =0AAccept the support, ONLY if you can be assured i= t isn't accompanied by a use in polarization of the issue. In other words, = if you can get support from Republicans, too.=0A =0ASince I am neither an R= or a D, I'd be happy to support it however it is supported. Personally, I = don't want it to be affiliated with stances on abortion rights, or defundin= g the police, etc. I have views on those issues, but they aren't issues tha= t should be conflated with openness of the Internet.=0A =0A(Since many seem= to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and Right or Democrat or Re= publican, let me explain. My core political view has always been that centr= alizing functions in government unnecessarily is the same thing as despotis= m, that the ends don't justify the means, but that organization of function= s in society "organically" is better than any governmental approach. This v= iew is compatible with the Internet's founding principles. I view the Democ= rats and the Republicans as centralizers of power, each in their own way. W= hich is why I will not be loyal to either. That Socialists want to create c= entralized power just as much as Conservatives do. But making decentralized= structures work isn't just a matter of creating a distributed ledger or a = free cryptocurrency, in fact those things lead to centralizing power very e= fficiently.)=0A =0A =0AOn Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" = said:=0A=0A=0A=0A> Link below:=0A> =0A> If anyone wou= ld care to edit or comment. I really struggled with a=0A> means to present = an=0A> "upgrade in place" in a uniformly positive manner. I had to cut out = a=0A> lot of cusswords.=0A> =0A> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T21on7= g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=3Dsharing=0A> =0A> Secondly,= I also decided that I didn't care so much about having to=0A> submit this = in the context (and noise) of the rural broadband thing,=0A> so the pressur= e came off me to get it done by feb 20, with the=0A> inevitable outcome of = me not getting on it til this morning. :/=0A> =0A> Getting there, but it's = been kind of lonely... I can do a=0A> videoconference today between now and= 11AM=0A> if anyone would like to join in at:=0A> https://tun.taht.net:8443= /group/bufferbloat and will be back online=0A> tonight after 6PM.=0A> =0A> = That said, it would be good to fire this off there, and/or do an "open=0A> = letter", do a press release, and open up more shots at whatever=0A> governm= ent orgs we can aim at.=0A> =0A> PS It would help my focus a lot if some fo= lk tossed some dough into my=0A> patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and= longer term, if this=0A> develops into something good, we can do a bake sa= le for a press=0A> release.=0A> =0A> --=0A> "For a successful technology, r= eality must take precedence over public=0A> relations, for Mother Nature ca= nnot be fooled" - Richard Feynman=0A> =0A> dave@taht.net C= TO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729=0A> _________________________________= ______________=0A> Cerowrt-devel mailing list=0A> Cerowrt-devel@lists.buffe= rbloat.net=0A> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel=0A> ------=_20210221115047000000_51607 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is an excellent p= roposal. I am happy to support it somehow.

=0A

 = ;

=0A

I strongly recommend trying to find a way to m= ake sure it doesn't become a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitic= al partisans. (this is hard for me, because my politics are more aligned wi= th the Left than with the self-described conservatives and right-wing liber= tarians.

=0A

 

=0A

This = is based on personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing through 201= 2 or so with two issues:

=0A

 

=0A

1. Open Spectrum (using computational radio networking to make= a scalable framework for dense wireless extremely wideband internetworking= ). I along with a small number of others started this as a non-partisan eff= ort. It became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a social= ist taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it became an iss= ue where a subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decided to make it= a wedge issue in political form. (It should be noted that during this time= , a Republican Secretary of Commerce took up the idea of making UWB legal, = and fought off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting regulation wa= s ineffective because it was too weak to be usable).

=0A

 

=0A

2. Network Neutrality or Open Intern= et. Here the key issue was really about keeping Internet routing intermedia= ries from being selective about what packets they would deliver and what on= es they would not. The design of the Internet was completely based on open = carriage of all packets without the routers billing for or metering based o= n end-to-end concerns. Again, for a variety of reasons, this simple idea go= t entangled with partisanship politically - such that advocates for an Open= Internet were seen to be promoting both Democratic Party and Silicon = Valley Tech interests. In fact, the case for Open Internet is not primarily= political. It's about scalability of the infrastructure and the ability to= carry Internet packets over any concatenation of paths, for mutual benefit= to all users. (That "mutual benefit" concept does seem to be alien to a ce= rtain kind of individualist libertarian cult thinking that is a small subse= t of Republican Party membership).

=0A

 

=0A=

If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiativ= e, it will encounter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing= reaction, and also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so cal= led Blue Dog Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity= of funding to those Democrats).

=0A

 

=0ASome "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this = to their "platform" as a partisan issue.

=0A

 <= /p>=0A

It may feel nice to have some of them on your si= de. Like you aren't alone. But by accepting this "help" on this issue, you = may be guaranteeing its failure.

=0A

 

=0AIn a world where compromise is allowed to generate solut= ions to problems, polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, ra= ther merely raising the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is impo= rtant and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not pa= rtisan. Its designers weren't party members or loyalists. We were solving a= problem of creating a scalable, efficient alternative to the "Bell System"= model of communications where every piece of gear got involved in deciding= what to do with each bit of information, where there were "voice bits" and= "data bits", "business bits" and "residential bits", and every piece of eq= uipment had to be told everything about each bits (through call setup).

= =0A

 

=0A

But today, compro= mise is not considered possible, even at the level of defining the problem!=

=0A

 

=0A

So this simpl= e architectural approach to clearing out the brush that has grown like weed= s throughout the Internet, especially at the "access provider" will become = political. 

=0A

 

=0A

Since in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and revenues = to edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate pipes, the na= tural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents, fu= nded by equipment providers for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lucent and= their competitors), with Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats carrying their= water. That's tthe likely polarization axis. I can say that Progressive me= mbers of the Democratic Party will love to have a new issue to raise funds.= I can make the argument that it should be supported by Republicans or Inde= pendents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats and Progressives, = and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them.

=0A

 

=0A

Either way, you won't get it adopted a= t scale, IF you make it a Party Loyalist issue.

=0A

=  

=0A

So please look that "gift horse" of Democ= ratic Party support in the mouth when it comes.

=0A

=  

=0A

Accept the support, ONLY if you can be as= sured it isn't accompanied by a use in polarization of the issue. In other = words, if you can get support from Republicans, too.

=0A

 

=0A

Since I am neither an R or a D, I'd = be happy to support it however it is supported. Personally, I don't want it= to be affiliated with stances on abortion rights, or defunding the police,= etc. I have views on those issues, but they aren't issues that should be c= onflated with openness of the Internet.

=0A

 =0A

(Since many seem to think the world is a dichotom= y between Left and Right or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core= political view has always been that centralizing functions in government u= nnecessarily is the same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify th= e means, but that organization of functions in society "organically" is bet= ter than any governmental approach. This view is compatible with the Intern= et's founding principles. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centr= alizers of power, each in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal t= o either. That Socialists want to create centralized power just as much as = Conservatives do. But making decentralized structures work isn't just a mat= ter of creating a distributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact thos= e things lead to centralizing power very efficiently.)

=0A

 

=0A

 

=0A

= On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com= > said:

=0A
=0A

> Link below:
>
> If anyone would care to = edit or comment. I really struggled with a
> means to present an> "upgrade in place" in a uniformly positive manner. I had to cut out= a
> lot of cusswords.
>
> https://docs.google.com= /document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=3Dsharing=
>
> Secondly, I also decided that I didn't care so much a= bout having to
> submit this in the context (and noise) of the rura= l broadband thing,
> so the pressure came off me to get it done by = feb 20, with the
> inevitable outcome of me not getting on it til t= his morning. :/
>
> Getting there, but it's been kind of l= onely... I can do a
> videoconference today between now and 11AM> if anyone would like to join in at:
> https://tun.taht.net:= 8443/group/bufferbloat and will be back online
> tonight after 6PM.=
>
> That said, it would be good to fire this off there, a= nd/or do an "open
> letter", do a press release, and open up more s= hots at whatever
> government orgs we can aim at.
>
&= gt; PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough into my<= br />> patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and longer term, if this> develops into something good, we can do a bake sale for a press> release.
>
> --
> "For a successful techno= logy, reality must take precedence over public
> relations, for Mot= her Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman
>
> dave@ta= ht.net <Dave T=C3=A4ht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
&= gt; _______________________________________________
> Cerowrt-devel= mailing list
> Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https= ://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
>

=0A
------=_20210221115047000000_51607--