From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x12a.google.com (mail-il1-x12a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12a]) (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 BB4D83B29E; Thu, 4 Mar 2021 22:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-il1-x12a.google.com with SMTP id v14so739449ilj.11; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 19:54:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GrHMhof/BfqTLw9lRd/QsTwWfDRSb/n8taIgMm16eg0=; b=KPoFMtImti3+zxLKwhmKevthP5q/PDmXU4+Hna1zJNyqXarAMFeum7WYLyhxSrJLlt KTyAHxstBd6P25JXWMvvrNJq00FYEdksawNMPZmEfUSC22VlZBtRdfy8SLBE0iJ4eXpu ZI7lXzVqxgJNUAIJPl/gxQbiz4VcHHaULu++bodOlVr/dekfPG/STvFFHOSiEaznRnEm WhPjKcd7uQpb6zL1hle8vqlKgNX5asrn2gB0mWyaKHQPlSFpKmwOHejxuQsTGiWZnvn/ AC8YriS6UbzvNtjObuYN8mc3sY6JU9qDWkUzmRLGOm5L20NypsrjrHyL4d2yYAjk7Pt4 ulbg== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GrHMhof/BfqTLw9lRd/QsTwWfDRSb/n8taIgMm16eg0=; b=pIleCjCjobyl+o/Ml8tTVtnrPYB/LHcOme60p92izAZ2j5QmrmdMAv0RXU/UEhAfez uazNVqHmnG9eS9Z7ClGdbb5uoSv5sqCPxO52F7X5v5C5SqjqprTUOGdG2Wanrn0ZH+iw oncwNfCScxl5JZWVBAIdtmfeA7KuJcjCrjJ87D2RkkuVBm8ArtDlNPRXczC5Dd+WiHg7 2qOGoNcoQeEh7hP+lwJCkZekSJkiXzCb6Lwa0E5hHje5kf1Dkh2NgrSc2TpcImRvo4mO IZonAih+Q2SmmvDHgcT9hImdfrvCvwREM469Adn3pBWSaDyJD7k8fOAqRHgpEDmp8RrA +fOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532GbCWUaP13+uQh5UlnyprVWRtjf5Mk7Qe/ipfl8lP16BFD5aD+ zkE8YReVQ17emV8fm2SwLV6oPTQgD+46QfFHQ+Rf2mZd40Cf2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxejV4h6WEvjf8t1RVeOe5Tk+sufINq+jAfPskI9tpLyeXFNyRboWVDmJ3W1ka5yR5mrcnnRreobzD+RMvkLW8= X-Received: by 2002:a92:cb49:: with SMTP id f9mr6540804ilq.0.1614916466940; Thu, 04 Mar 2021 19:54:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1613926247.111332171@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: <1613926247.111332171@apps.rackspace.com> From: Dave Taht Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 19:54:15 -0800 Message-ID: To: "David P. Reed" Cc: bloat , cerowrt-devel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] a start at the FCC filing X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 03:54:27 -0000 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-qu= adruple-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 become = a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisans. (this is hard= for me, because my politics are more aligned with the Left than with the s= elf-described conservatives and right-wing libertarians. > > > > This is based on personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing thro= ugh 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 bec= ame (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a socialist taking = of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it became an issue where a = subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decided to make it a wedge is= sue in political form. (It should be noted that during this time, a Republi= can Secretary of Commerce took up the idea of making UWB legal, and fought = off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting regulation was ineffecti= ve because it was too weak to be usable). > > > > 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really abo= ut 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 r= outers billing for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again, for a v= ariety of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship politic= ally - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be promoting b= oth Democratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, the case f= or Open Internet is not primarily political. It's about scalability of the = infrastructure and the ability to carry Internet packets over any concatena= tion of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That "mutual benefit" conc= ept does seem to be alien to a certain kind of individualist libertarian cu= lt thinking that is a small subset of Republican Party membership). > > > > If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will encounte= r resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction, and also= from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue Dog Democr= ats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of funding to thos= e Democrats). > > > > Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their "platfor= m" 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 guaranteeing its f= ailure. > > > > In a world where compromise is allowed to generate solutions to problems,= polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, rather merely raisi= ng the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is important and joint w= ork to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not partisan. Its desig= ners weren't party members or loyalists. We were solving a problem of creat= ing a scalable, efficient alternative to the "Bell System" model of communi= cations 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", "bu= siness bits" and "residential 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 de= fining the problem! > > > > So this simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that has = grown like weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access provide= r" will become political. > > > > Since in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and revenues t= o edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate pipes, the nat= ural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents, fun= ded 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 mem= bers 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 Indep= endents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats and Progressives, a= nd 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 Loy= alist 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 fr= om 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 stances on abo= rtion rights, or defunding the police, etc. I have views on those issues, b= ut they aren't issues that should be conflated with openness of the Interne= t. > > > > (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 alwa= ys been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the same= thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that organi= zation of functions in society "organically" is better than any governmenta= l approach. This view is compatible with the Internet's founding principles= . I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of power, each i= n their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to either. That Socialist= s want to create centralized power just as much as Conservatives do. But ma= king decentralized structures work isn't just a matter of creating a distri= buted ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact those things lead to central= izing 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/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0= VXoC9e3I/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 "open > > 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 my > > 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 public > > 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 > > --=20 "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