From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21CDB3CB35 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 01:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id q14so1359509ljp.4 for ; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:16:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hNAqyQXkus7k1vq8Ll0WzW175Gbp00tiSFCaAfR7N1k=; b=IsCZ56UjpqKiIlqadwZA5R+Oj7hLsOvLfGN0jiO4JRaLwzygBF4PmClpA25PPMf8ND qEuWiFxnc1P0MRMJwpAJb7WYEUtwMWXAtDDG/tayQcPC12heSKqba0NpheKMeEJG7v5u 9edz634Lm2+oTrNBldN+tnMZwPtCoElVxDO13/qeu8mG0rVFwdfZSdH5Al8IjlML+Ng/ uAj1aoGmNAS0w2KcqqoNX7BbYltaKrGSlqlOKqauamjzg6yp1gqhV9AUc8rt5j9yItyq 5MqeH/uQhuDLTRNaC+0Fm9uKTLX3+lelkHU8t/9GHm0d79q+V0FPnlGdRDEfdetTxFq+ iLQA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hNAqyQXkus7k1vq8Ll0WzW175Gbp00tiSFCaAfR7N1k=; b=tCU1EnIjqEJ13R+JZP5XF1aUPIj3u7VDw3V96VlQwdRQCEUJ65JRHx4LlVfjuvIE/j 5MoH4CdUQONp87k1sGcQq51g+rhXDVS5ZCmzaXD25i3pJDj8JZnZsWH4gV8JEi76Api2 jTyUmEb6dRHAncKKNzRLzJiRNhhvYKPFs9zkEyTKhT/GiMrEA8MSVsxBAbDAlkJZKbZU NhgKHduyNaY98rbFwZz2fSeHeRJnJKp4bZVEohUFRdziQpEbdjXTigmBc7SSr0SQj5ql 9SF0FKkbBAt+eAosPN/x6j/q4RcPlCbUxiILDX/f0x9UNzXe3IwEDHnAJKCcQ4FD4Lam 7AqQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530WVVVGPnXVmr8z96JPY9I89eeCtkm9rqd7fft9lVfrJg9g6VjI f2yrF6PVbNKH2lymJ4XMknW0QFtusRqI93Ikz2x31g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyNGNsxoK8coosS84dlW/o5x+bbf1cFq09Y4n4GFjJ8lu9JM/rZqNlzHs99UDlJZggzRbcpjN0x6ujH7gNFNws= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b4c3:: with SMTP id r3mr4222811ljm.232.1614924964526; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 22:16:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1613926247.111332171@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: From: Stephen Hemminger Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 22:15:53 -0800 Message-ID: To: Dave Taht Cc: "David P. Reed" , cerowrt-devel , bloat Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d98f6b05bcc404ae" 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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 06:16:06 -0000 --000000000000d98f6b05bcc404ae Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Start with Ron Wyden On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Taht wrote: > I am planning to take my time on this. I would like for example, to > at least communicate well with a republican senator and a democratic one. > > Admittedly, if we can upgrade everybody to 100Mbit, everybody can have > all 4 home members being couch potatoes in front of HD netflix and > there won't be much motivation to do anything else. > > > https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/senators-call-on-fcc-to-= quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds > > Anybody know these guys? > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM David P. Reed wrote= : > > > > This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow. > > > > > > > > I strongly recommend trying to find a way to make sure it doesn't becom= e > a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisans. (this is ha= rd > for me, because my politics are more aligned 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 with two issues: > > > > > > > > 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 > 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 > 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 was ineffective because it was too weak to be usable). > > > > > > > > 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really > about keeping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about > what packets they would deliver and what ones 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 on end-to-end concerns. Again, > for a variety of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanshi= p > politically - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be > promoting both Democratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fac= t, > the case for Open Internet is not primarily political. It's about > scalability of the infrastructure and the ability to carry Internet packe= ts > over any concatenation of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That > "mutual benefit" concept does seem to be alien to a certain kind of > individualist libertarian cult thinking that is a small subset of > Republican Party membership). > > > > > > > > If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will > encounter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction= , > and also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue > Dog Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of > funding to those Democrats). > > > > > > > > Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their > "platform" as a partisan issue. > > > > > > > > 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 guaranteein= g > its failure. > > > > > > > > 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 problem is importa= nt > and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not > partisan. Its designers weren't party members or loyalists. We were solvi= ng > 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 equipment had to be told everything about each bits (through cal= l > setup). > > > > > > > > But today, compromise is not considered possible, even at the level of > defining the problem! > > > > > > > > So this simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that ha= s > grown like weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access > provider" will become political. > > > > > > > > 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 likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents= , > funded 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 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 opposed by Democra= ts > and Progressives, and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them. > > > > > > > > Either way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party > Loyalist issue. > > > > > > > > So please look that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support in the > mouth when it comes. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Since I am neither an R or a D, I'd be happy to support it however it i= s > 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 conflated with openness 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 h= as > always been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is th= e > same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that > organization of functions in society "organically" is better than any > governmental approach. This view is compatible with the Internet's foundi= ng > principles. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of > power, each in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to either. > That Socialists want to create centralized 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 efficiently.) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" > said: > > > > > 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/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VX= oC9e3I/edit?usp=3Dsharing > > > > > > Secondly, I also decided that I didn't care so much about having to > > > submit this in the context (and noise) of the rural 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 this morning. :/ > > > > > > Getting there, but it's been kind of lonely... 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, and/or do an "ope= n > > > letter", do a press release, and open up more shots at whatever > > > government orgs we can aim at. > > > > > > PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough into m= y > > > 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 technology, reality must take precedence over publi= c > > > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > > > > > dave@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > > > > -- > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > dave@taht.net CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat > --000000000000d98f6b05bcc404ae Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Start with Ron Wyden

=
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Tah= t <dave.taht@gmail.com> wr= ote:
I am planning to take my time = on this. I would like for example, to
at least communicate well with a republican senator and a democratic one.
Admittedly, if we can upgrade everybody to 100Mbit, everybody can have
all 4 home members being couch potatoes in front of HD netflix and
there won't be much motivation to do anything else.

https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/s= enators-call-on-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds

Anybody know these guys?

On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com&= gt; wrote:
>
> This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow.
>
>
>
> I strongly recommend trying to find a way to make sure it doesn't = become a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisa= ns. (this is hard for me, because my politics are more aligned with the Lef= t than with the self-described conservatives and right-wing libertarians. >
>
>
> This is based on personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing t= hrough 2012 or so with two issues:
>
>
>
> 1. Open Spectrum (using computational radio networking to make a scala= ble framework for dense wireless extremely wideband internetworking). I alo= ng with a small number of others started this as a non-partisan effort. It = became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a soci= alist taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it b= ecame an issue where a subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decide= d to make it a wedge issue in political form. (It should be noted that duri= ng 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 r= egulation was ineffective because it was too weak to be usable).
>
>
>
> 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really = about keeping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about wh= at packets they would deliver and what ones they would not. The design of t= he Internet was completely based on open carriage of all packets without th= e routers billing for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again, for = a variety of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship poli= tically - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be promotin= g both Democratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, the cas= e for Open Internet is not primarily political. It's about scalability = of the infrastructure and the ability to carry Internet packets over any co= ncatenation of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That "mutual b= enefit" concept does seem to be alien to a certain kind of individuali= st libertarian cult thinking that is a small subset of Republican Party mem= bership).
>
>
>
> If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will encou= nter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction, and a= lso from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue Dog Dem= ocrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of funding to t= hose Democrats).
>
>
>
> Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to t= heir "platform" as a partisan issue.
>
>
>
> 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 g= uaranteeing its failure.
>
>
>
> In a world where compromise is allowed to generate solutions to proble= ms, polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, rather merely ra= ising the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is important and join= t work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not partisan. Its de= signers weren't party members or loyalists. We were solving a problem o= f 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 "resid= ential bits", and every piece of equipment had to be told everything a= bout each bits (through call setup).
>
>
>
> But today, compromise is not considered possible, even at the level of= defining the problem!
>
>
>
> So this simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that h= as grown like weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access= provider" will become political.
>
>
>
> Since in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and revenue= s to edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate p= ipes, the natural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom in= cumbents, funded by equipment providers for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcate= l Lucent and their competitors), with Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats ca= rrying their water. That's tthe likely polarization axis. I can say tha= t 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 Rep= ublicans or Independents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats an= d Progressives, and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them.
>
>
>
> Either way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Pa= rty Loyalist issue.
>
>
>
> So please look that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support= in the mouth when it comes.
>
>
>
> Accept the support, ONLY if you can be assured it isn't accompanie= d by a use in polarization of the issue. In other words, if you can get sup= port 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 with sta= nces on abortion rights, or defunding the police, etc. I have views on thos= e issues, but they aren't issues that should be conflated with openness= of the Internet.
>
>
>
> (Since many seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and Ri= ght or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core political view has a= lways been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the s= ame thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that= organization of functions in society "organically" is better tha= n any governmental approach. This view is compatible with the Internet'= s founding principles. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centrali= zers of power, each in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to e= ither. That Socialists want to create centralized power just as much as Con= servatives do. But making decentralized structures work isn't just a ma= tter of creating a distributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact tho= se things lead to centralizing power very efficiently.)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <dav= e.taht@gmail.com> said:
>
> > 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 ha= d to cut out a
> > lot of cusswords.
> >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUd= xLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=3Dsharing
> >
> > Secondly, I also decided that I didn't care so much about hav= ing to
> > submit this in the context (and noise) of the rural broadband thi= ng,
> > so the pressure came off me to get it done by feb 20, with the > > inevitable outcome of me not getting on it til this morning. :/ > >
> > Getting there, but it's been kind of lonely... I can do a
> > videoconference today between now and 11AM
> > if anyone would like to join in at:
> > https://tun.taht.net:8443/group/buff= erbloat and will be back online
> > tonight after 6PM.
> >
> > That said, 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 whate= ver
> > government orgs we can aim at.
> >
> > PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough in= to my
> > patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and lon= ger term, if this
> > develops into something good, we can do a bake sale for a press > > release.
> >
> > --
> > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence o= ver public
> > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Fey= nman
> >
> > dave@taht.net <Dave T=C3=A4ht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831= -435-0729
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net
> > https://lists.bufferbloat.n= et/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> >



--
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 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<= br> _______________________________________________
Bloat mailing list
Bloat@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat<= /a>
--000000000000d98f6b05bcc404ae--