From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp83.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp83.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938923B29E for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from app11.wa-webapps.iad3a (relay-webapps.rsapps.net [172.27.255.140]) by smtp27.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 06C0924866; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:18:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from deepplum.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by app11.wa-webapps.iad3a (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA7BA1052; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:18:19 -0500 (EST) Received: by apps.rackspace.com (Authenticated sender: dpreed@deepplum.com, from: dpreed@deepplum.com) with HTTP; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:18:19 -0500 (EST) X-Auth-ID: dpreed@deepplum.com Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2021 14:18:19 -0500 (EST) From: "David P. Reed" To: "Stephen Hemminger" Cc: "Dave Taht" , "cerowrt-devel" , "bloat" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_20210307141819000000_77675" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Type: html In-Reply-To: References: <1613926247.111332171@apps.rackspace.com> X-Client-IP: 209.6.10.161 Message-ID: <1615144699.912813740@apps.rackspace.com> X-Mailer: webmail/18.1.20-RC X-Classification-ID: 47c41e60-b238-4cc9-ad42-948d0f388f19-1-1 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, 07 Mar 2021 19:18:20 -0000 ------=_20210307141819000000_77675 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =0APolitically incorrect recommendations of mine:=0A =0AStart by how a chan= ged FCC approach will do at solving problems in Detroit, Milwaukee and LA.= =0A =0A"Rural" broadband is not a good leverage point to change policy. It'= s just a box to tick to promise something that will get rural votes, but th= e only real problem with rural networking is getting funding there because = the private sector won't invest. That's why Rural Broadband basically sank = Open Internet in Genachowski's time - it was just a promise of a "handout".= Hence, I point out cities that have lots of votes but no Internet services= .=0A =0ARepublicans have a strong aversion to government programs or redist= ribution of wealth from rich to poor.. The FCC has no budget for programs, = so that isn't a fundamental issue, but they do regulate some very wealthy i= ndustries. Do not make this look or act as a "redistribution" project.=0A = =0AMany of the folks in DC (of all partisan stripes) view the FCC as a "rev= enue generator" for the government - a sort of "taxing authority" without t= he word "tax" being involved. That is, the major function of the FCC to the= m is "running auctions" to fund the government - the auctions being spectru= m auctions.=0A =0AIn that sense, the FCC is thought to be like the Dept' of= the Interior - it takes the Property Rights of the US Government and hands= them out for "development". (now my personal view is that this idea that t= he USG has Property Rights is like the idea that the King/Queen of England = owns all the land of England, and the people live on it at sufferance of th= e Royals - an absurd idea, but one that comes from the idea that government= s rule, and people who live there are just tenants).=0A =0ANearly anything = you propose to do with the FCC touches on its primary role as manager of th= e intangible Property that belongs solely to the Gov't. Republicans general= ly believe Property is sacred. Democrats generall believe Property is best = managed by complex Government bureaucratic control. =0A =0AFree Speech, Fre= e Assembly, and Free Press are excluded from the FCC's ambit, by a history = of Supreme Court decisions. That group of ideas has no sway in US communica= tions policy, because people don't have property rights, and communicaitons= is property.=0A =0ATo win Republican or Democratic minds (with only a few = exceptions) you have to understand these issues of perception.=0A =0AThat's= separate from the ideas of pseudo-physics that permeate society (like the = idea that there is a small bounded set of opportunities to interconnect ove= r wires, fiber, or radio waves, or certain "beachfront property" which just= ifies excluding communications except among a select few operators that are= regulated). Some of us have made a few dents in questioning this pseudo-ph= ysical scarcity argument in radio, but not in wires and fiber. But where we= lost wasn't there - where we lost was in not understanding the FCC's role = as described above.=0A =0AOn Friday, March 5, 2021 1:15am, "Stephen Hemming= er" said:=0A=0A=0A=0AStart with Ron Wyden=0A= =0A=0AOn Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Taht <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mail= to:dave.taht@gmail.com )> wrote:I am planning to take my time on this. I wo= uld like for example, to=0A at least communicate well with a republican sen= ator and a democratic one.=0A=0A Admittedly, if we can upgrade everybody to= 100Mbit, everybody can have=0A all 4 home members being couch potatoes in = front of HD netflix and=0A there won't be much motivation to do anything el= se.=0A=0A[ https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/senators-call-o= n-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds ]( https://news.slashdot= .org/story/21/03/04/1722256/senators-call-on-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-spe= ed-internet-speeds )=0A=0A Anybody know these guys?=0A=0A On Sun, Feb 21, 2= 021 at 8:50 AM David P. Reed <[ dpreed@deepplum.com ]( mailto:dpreed@deeppl= um.com )> wrote:=0A >=0A > This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to sup= port it somehow.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > I strongly recommend trying to find a = way to make sure it doesn't become a proposal put forward by "progressive" = potlitical partisans. (this is hard for me, because my politics are more al= igned with the Left than with the self-described conservatives and right-wi= ng libertarians.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > This is based on personal experience s= tarting in 2000 and continuing through 2012 or so with two issues:=0A >=0A = >=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 effo= rt. It became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a sociali= st taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it became an issu= e 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, a= nd fought off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting regulation was= ineffective because it was too weak to be usable).=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > 2. = Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really about ke= eping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about what packe= ts they would deliver and what ones they would not. The design of the Inter= net was completely based on open carriage of all packets without the router= s billing for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again, for a variet= y of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship politically = - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be promoting both D= emocratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, the case for Op= en Internet is not primarily political. It's about scalability of the infra= structure and the ability to carry Internet packets over any concatenation = of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That "mutual benefit" concept d= oes seem to be alien to a certain kind of individualist libertarian cult th= inking that is a small subset of Republican Party membership).=0A >=0A >=0A= >=0A > If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will en= counter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction, an= d also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue Dog = Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of funding t= o those Democrats).=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > Some "progressive" Democrats will r= each out to add this to their "platform" as a partisan issue.=0A >=0A >=0A = >=0A > It may feel nice to have some of them on your side. Like you aren't = alone. But by accepting this "help" on this issue, you may be guaranteeing = its failure.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > In a world where compromise is allowed to = generate solutions to problems, polarizing would not be effective to kill a= good idea, rather merely raising the issue would lead to recognizing the p= roblem is important and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Inter= net was not partisan. 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 involv= ed in deciding what to do with each bit of information, where there were "v= oice bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and "residential bits", and eve= ry piece of equipment had to be told everything about each bits (through ca= ll setup).=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > But today, compromise is not considered poss= ible, even at the level of defining the problem!=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > So thi= s simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that has grown li= ke weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access provider" will = become political.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > Since in the end of the day it threat= ens to reduce control and revenues to edge "access providers" that come fro= m selling higher-rate pipes, the natural opposition will likely come from l= obbyists for telecom incumbents, funded by equipment providers for those in= cumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lucent and their competitors), with Republicans an= d Blue-Dog Democrats carrying their water. That's tthe likely polarization = axis. I can say that Progressive members 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 Independents, though. If so, it will be oppo= sed by Democrats and Progressives, and the money will flow through Blue Dog= s to them.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > Either way, you won't get it adopted at scal= e, IF you make it a Party Loyalist issue.=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > So please loo= k that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support in the mouth when it comes.= =0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > Accept the support, ONLY if you can be assured 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 >=0A >=0A > Since I am neit= her an R or a D, I'd be happy to support it however it is supported. Person= ally, 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 is= sues that should be conflated with openness of the Internet.=0A >=0A >=0A >= =0A > (Since many seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and R= ight or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core political view has = always been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the = same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that or= ganization of functions in society "organically" is better than any governm= ental approach. This view is compatible with the Internet's founding princi= ples. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of power, ea= ch in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to either. That Socia= lists want to create centralized power just as much as Conservatives do. Bu= t making decentralized structures work isn't just a matter of creating a di= stributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact those things lead to cen= tralizing power very efficiently.)=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A >=0A > On Thursda= y, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <[ dave.taht@gmail.com ]( mailto:= dave.taht@gmail.com )> said:=0A >=0A > > Link below:=0A > >=0A > > If anyon= e would 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.c= om/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=3Dshari= ng ]( https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBa= t0VXoC9e3I/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 (a= nd noise) of the rural broadband thing,=0A > > so the pressure came off me = to get it done by feb 20, with the=0A > > inevitable outcome of me not gett= ing on it til this morning. :/=0A > >=0A > > Getting there, but it's been k= ind of lonely... I can do a=0A > > videoconference today between now and 11= AM=0A > > if anyone would like to join in at:=0A > > [ https://tun.taht.net= :8443/group/bufferbloat ]( https://tun.taht.net:8443/group/bufferbloat ) an= d 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", d= o a press release, and open up more shots at whatever=0A > > government org= s we can aim at.=0A > >=0A > > PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk= tossed some dough into my=0A > > patreon. [ https://www.patreon.com/dtaht = ]( https://www.patreon.com/dtaht ) and longer term, if this=0A > > develops= into something good, we can do a bake sale for a press=0A > > release.=0A = > >=0A > > --=0A > > "For a successful technology, reality must take preced= ence over public=0A > > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Ri= chard Feynman=0A > >=0A > > [ dave@taht.net ]( mailto:dave@taht.net ) CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729=0A > > _________________= ______________________________=0A > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list=0A > > [ C= erowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloa= t.net )=0A > > [ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel ]( ht= tps://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel )=0A > >=0A=0A=0A=0A -- = =0A "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public= =0A relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman=0A=0A[= dave@taht.net ]( mailto:dave@taht.net ) CTO, TekLibre, LL= C Tel: 1-831-435-0729=0A _______________________________________________=0A= Bloat mailing list=0A[ Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net ]( mailto:Bloat@lists.b= ufferbloat.net )=0A[ https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat ]( https:= //lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat ) ------=_20210307141819000000_77675 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Politically incorrect = recommendations of mine:

=0A

 

=0A

Start by how a changed FCC approach will do at solving problem= s in Detroit, Milwaukee and LA.

=0A

 

=0A

"Rural" broadband is not a good leverage point to change = policy. It's just a box to tick to promise something that will get rural vo= tes, but the only real problem with rural networking is getting funding the= re because the private sector won't invest. That's why Rural Broadband basi= cally sank Open Internet in Genachowski's time - it was just a promise of a= "handout". Hence, I point out cities that have lots of votes but no Intern= et services.

=0A

 

=0A

R= epublicans have a strong aversion to government programs or redistribution = of wealth from rich to poor.. The FCC has no budget for programs, so that i= sn't a fundamental issue, but they do regulate some very wealthy industries= . Do not make this look or act as a "redistribution" project.

=0A

 

=0A

Many of the folks in DC (of= all partisan stripes) view the FCC as a "revenue generator" for the govern= ment - a sort of "taxing authority" without the word "tax" being involved. = That is, the major function of the FCC to them is "running auctions" to fun= d the government - the auctions being spectrum auctions.

=0A

 

=0A

In that sense, the FCC is though= t to be like the Dept' of the Interior - it takes the Property Rights of th= e US Government and hands them out for "development". (now my personal view= is that this idea that the USG has Property Rights is like the idea that t= he King/Queen of England owns all the land of England, and the people live = on it at sufferance of the Royals - an absurd idea, but one that comes from= the idea that governments rule, and people who live there are just tenants= ).

=0A

 

=0A

Nearly anyt= hing you propose to do with the FCC touches on its primary role as manager = of the intangible Property that belongs solely to the Gov't. Republicans ge= nerally believe Property is sacred. Democrats generall believe Property is = best managed by complex Government bureaucratic control. 

=0A

 

=0A

Free Speech, Free Assembly= , and Free Press are excluded from the FCC's ambit, by a history of Supreme= Court decisions. That group of ideas has no sway in US communications poli= cy, because people don't have property rights, and communicaitons is proper= ty.

=0A

 

=0A

To win Rep= ublican or Democratic minds (with only a few exceptions) you have to unders= tand these issues of perception.

=0A

 

=0AThat's separate from the ideas of pseudo-physics that pe= rmeate society (like the idea that there is a small bounded set of opportun= ities to interconnect over wires, fiber, or radio waves, or certain "beachf= ront property" which justifies excluding communications except among a sele= ct few operators that are regulated). Some of us have made a few dents in q= uestioning this pseudo-physical scarcity argument in radio, but not in wire= s and fiber. But where we lost wasn't there - where we lost was in not unde= rstanding the FCC's role as described above.

=0A

&nb= sp;

=0A

On Friday, March 5, 2021 1:15am, "Stephen He= mminger" <stephen@networkplumber.org> said:

=0A
=0A
Start with Ron Wyden
=0A
=0A=0A
On Thu, Ma= r 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Taht <dav= e.taht@gmail.com> wrote:
=0A
https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/s= enators-call-on-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds
<= br /> Anybody know these guys?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM = David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
>
>= This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow.
>= ;
>
>
> I strongly recommend trying to find a wa= y to make sure it doesn't become a proposal put forward by "progressive" po= tlitical partisans. (this is hard for me, because my politics are more alig= ned with the Left than with the self-described conservatives and right-wing= libertarians.
>
>
>
> This is based on= personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing through 2012 or so wit= h two issues:
>
>
>
> 1. Open Spectrum = (using computational radio networking to make a scalable framework for dens= e wireless extremely wideband internetworking). I along with a small number= of others started this as a non-partisan effort. It became (due to lobbyis= ts and "activists") considered to be a socialist taking of property from sp= ectrum "owners". After that, it became an issue where a subset of the Democ= ratic Party (progressives) decided to make it a wedge issue in political fo= rm. (It should be noted that during this time, a Republican Secretary of Co= mmerce took up the idea of making UWB legal, and fought off lobbyists to so= me extent, though the resulting regulation was ineffective because it was t= oo weak to be usable).
>
>
>
> 2. 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).
>
= >
>
> If this becomes yet another Democratic Party ini= tiative, it will encounter resistance, both from Republican-identified pola= rizing reaction, and also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (= so called Blue Dog Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest qu= antity of funding to those Democrats).
>
>
>
> Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their "p= latform" as a partisan issue.
>
>
>
> I= t may feel nice to have some of them on your side. Like you aren't alone. B= ut by accepting this "help" on this issue, you may be guaranteeing its fail= ure.
>
>
>
> In a world where compromis= e is allowed to generate solutions to problems, polarizing would not be eff= ective to kill a good idea, rather merely raising the issue would lead to r= ecognizing the problem is important and joint work to create a solution. In= 1975, the Internet was not partisan. Its designers weren't party members o= r loyalists. We were solving a problem of creating a scalable, efficient al= ternative to the "Bell System" model of communications where every piece of= gear got involved in deciding what to do with each bit of information, whe= re there were "voice bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and "residentia= l bits", and every piece of equipment had to be told everything about each = bits (through call setup).
>
>
>
> But = today, compromise is not considered possible, even at the level of defining= the problem!
>
>
>
> So this simple ar= chitectural approach to clearing out the brush that has grown like weeds th= roughout the Internet, especially at the "access provider" will become poli= tical.
>
>
>
> 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 natural opposition will likel= y come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents, funded by equipment providers= for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lucent and their competitors), with R= epublicans and Blue-Dog Democrats carrying their water. That's tthe likely = polarization axis. I can say that Progressive members of the Democratic Par= ty will love to have a new issue to raise funds. I can make the argument th= at it should be supported by Republicans or Independents, though. If so, it= will be opposed by Democrats and Progressives, and the money will flow thr= ough Blue Dogs to them.
>
>
>
> Either = way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party Loyalist iss= ue.
>
>
>
> So please look that "gift h= orse" of Democratic Party support in the mouth when it comes.
> >
>
> Accept the support, ONLY if you can be assur= ed it isn't accompanied by a use in polarization of the issue. In other wor= ds, if you can get support from Republicans, too.
>
>
>
> 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 wi= th stances on abortion rights, or defunding the police, etc. I have views o= n those issues, but they aren't issues that should be conflated with openne= ss of the Internet.
>
>
>
> (Since many= seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and Right or Democrat = or Republican, let me explain. My core political view has always been that = centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the same thing as des= potism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that organization of fun= ctions in society "organically" is better than any governmental approach. T= his view is compatible with the Internet's founding principles. I view the = Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of power, each in their own w= ay. Which is why I will not be loyal to either. That Socialists want to cre= ate centralized power just as much as Conservatives do. But making decentra= lized structures work isn't just a matter of creating a distributed ledger = or a free cryptocurrency, in fact those things lead to centralizing power v= ery efficiently.)
>
>
>
>
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht= @gmail.com> said:
>
> > Link below:
> = >
> > If anyone would care to edit or comment. I really stru= ggled with a
> > means to present an
> > "upgrade i= n place" in a uniformly positive manner. I had to cut out a
> >= lot of cusswords.
> >
> > https://docs.go= ogle.com/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp= =3Dsharing
> >
> > Secondly, I also decided tha= t I didn't care so much about having to
> > submit this in the = context (and noise) of the rural broadband thing,
> > so the pr= essure came off me to get it done by feb 20, with the
> > inevi= table outcome of me not getting on it til this morning. :/
> ><= br /> > > Getting there, but it's been kind of lonely... I can do a > > videoconference today between now and 11AM
> > i= f anyone would like to join in at:
> > https://tun.taht.net:8443/group/bufferbloat and will be back onlin= e
> > tonight after 6PM.
> >
> > That s= aid, it would be good to fire this off there, and/or do an "open
>= > letter", do a press release, and open up more shots at whatever
= > > government orgs we can aim at.
> >
> > P= S It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough into my
= > > patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and lo= nger term, if this
> > develops into something good, we can do = a bake sale for a press
> > release.
> >
>= > --
> > "For a successful technology, reality must take pr= ecedence over public
> > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be= fooled" - Richard Feynman
> >
> > dave@taht.net <= ;Dave T=C3=A4ht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
> > = _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-dev= el mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.buffer= bloat.net
> > https:/= /lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> >



--
"For a successful technology, reality must take pr= ecedence over public
relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" -= Richard Feynman

dave@taht.net <Dave T=C3=A4ht> CTO, TekLib= re, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
_________________________________________= ______
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinf= o/bloat
=0A
=0A ------=_20210307141819000000_77675--