Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application

[Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14654 bytes --]

Elon Musk can afford to take starlink to markey without the government subsidies. It's past time to stop subsidizing the richest person on the planet.

⁣Bob

On Dec 16, 2023, 1:44 PM, at 1:44 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still
>believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have
>less
>bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone
>knows
>that there is still SO much work in front of us.
>
>*trying to bring this thread back on track :-)
>
>So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k
>locations
>will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular
>amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC
>will
>decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink,
>in
>this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you
>will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing
>it? Or
>anyone with DOCSIS? No way.
>
>This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those
>people living at these locations in question are the ones that will
>loose
>the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental
>gymnastics
>you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No
>internet?
>Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I,
>those
>people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not
>give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or
>whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The
>only
>way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink.
>
>All the best,
>
>Frank
>
>Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
>https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
>Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
>iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
>Skype: casioa5302ca
>
>frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
>On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain <
>nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they
>have
>> to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And
>I was
>> amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are
>representing
>> these tough types? They're all women.
>>
>> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be
>enough?
>> When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when
>there
>> are nine. RBG
>>
>> Bob
>> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The president who ran Harvey Mudd College had to fix their computer
>>> science problem of a 90% to 10% male to female ratio. She was asked,
>>> "What's the goal?" She responded, "It should reflect to population
>so
>>> 50/50." The others said, "Be realistic."
>>>
>>> She was and she got it to 50/50 where it should be in every
>technology
>>> group.Though we have more improvements to be done.
>>>
>>>
>https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/
>>>
>>> There is now way to fix a problem without getting passed the denial
>>> phase. This list population, and the LEO worshiping of Musk
>displayed
>>> here by its constituents, are very much white male things. Not
>noticing
>>> this & staying silent on this shows a lack of integrity by the
>group. My
>>> judgment.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>>
>>>>  to be very clear, I am in no way saying that anyone's (let alone
>>>>  saying women's) views are not desired. I think a diversity of
>views if
>>>>  extremely valuable.
>>>>
>>>>  I just get my back up when people say things like 'there need to
>more
>>>>  X in charge' (for any value of X that refers to a characteristic
>that
>>>>  someone is born with)
>>>>
>>>>  David Lang
>>>>
>>>>  On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Dave Taht wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  This is principally a male dominated list, and I in general assume
>>>>>  that the public debate over fiber, bandwidth, etc, etc skews
>heavily
>>>>>  male also.
>>>>>
>>>>>  It is a very good set of questions to ask about how the internet
>>>>>  should be structured to best meet the needs of both sexes, and
>how
>>>>>  that has changed over time, and may change in the future! I
>hesitate
>>>>>  to even make one overbroad conclusion! Permanent connectivity and
>>>>>  messaging seems more important to women than men, and a phone
>more
>>>>>  important than fiber. Security (tracking and/or protecting kids),
>>>>>  also. It is something I would rather research than draw premature
>>>>>  conclusions from.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+men+and+women+use+the+internet+differently
>>>>>
>>>>>  On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:42 PM David Lang via Starlink
>>>>>  <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I've used it personally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Even if women use telehealth more than men, that doesn't say
>that
>>>>>>  women have any
>>>>>>  particular advantage in moving the bits around that make
>telehealth
>>>>>>  possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  David Lang
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Women are the primary users and providers of telehealth
>services.
>>>>>>>  They are
>>>>>>>  using broadband to care for our population. They also run most
>of
>>>>>>>  the
>>>>>>>  addiction services across our country, whatever the addiction
>may
>>>>>>>  be. So
>>>>>>>  gender actually matters. Ask them as providers. Telehealth
>doesn't
>>>>>>>  work over
>>>>>>>  LEO (nor does it matter much for men on boats.) Same for
>distance
>>>>>>>  learning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/women-more-likely-telehealth-patients-providers-covid-19-pandemic/608153/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  As Washington considers which virtual care flexibilities should
>>>>>>>  remain in
>>>>>>>  place post-COVID-19, experts are flagging that paring back
>>>>>>>  telehealth access
>>>>>>>  and affordability will disproportionately affect women, even as
>a
>>>>>>>  growing
>>>>>>>  share of startups emerge to address women’s unique health
>needs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  While women are more likely than men to visit doctors and
>consume
>>>>>>>  healthcare
>>>>>>>  services in general, telehealth seems to be uniquely attractive
>to
>>>>>>>  women.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  who exactly do you think is calling for there to be no
>Internet
>>>>>>>>  access? and what in the world does the sex of individuals have
>to
>>>>>>>>  do
>>>>>>>>  with shipping bits around?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Starlink (and hopefully it's future competitors) provides a
>way to
>>>>>>>>  get
>>>>>>>>  Internet service to everyone without having to run fiber to
>every
>>>>>>>>  house.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  As for the parallels with rural electrification, if that
>problem
>>>>>>>>  were
>>>>>>>>  to be faced today, would the right answer be massive public
>>>>>>>>  agencies
>>>>>>>>  to build and run miles of wire from massive central power
>plants?
>>>>>>>>  or
>>>>>>>>  would the right answer be solar + batteries in individual
>houses
>>>>>>>>  for
>>>>>>>>  the most rural folks, with small modular reactors to power the
>>>>>>>>  larger
>>>>>>>>  population areas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Just because there was only one way to achieve a goal in the
>past
>>>>>>>>  doesn't mean that approach is the best thing to do today.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  David Lang
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  Hi All,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  We're trying to modernize America. LBJ helped do it for
>>>>>>>>>  electricity
>>>>>>>>>  decades ago. It's our turn to step up to the plate.
>Tele-health
>>>>>>>>>  and
>>>>>>>>>  distance learning requires us to do so. There is so much to
>>>>>>>>>  follow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  A reminder what many women went through before LBJ showed up.
>I'm
>>>>>>>>>  skeptical a patriarchy under Musk is even close to capable.
>We
>>>>>>>>>  probably
>>>>>>>>>  need a woman to lead us, or at least motivate us to do our
>best
>>>>>>>>>  work for
>>>>>>>>>  our country and to be an example to the world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  A Hill Country farm wife had to do her chores even if she was
>ill
>>>>>>>>>  – no
>>>>>>>>>  matter how ill. Because Hill Country women were too poor to
>afford
>>>>>>>>>  proper
>>>>>>>>>  medical care they often suffered perineal tears in
>childbirth.
>>>>>>>>>  During the
>>>>>>>>>  1930s, the federal government sent physicians to examine a
>>>>>>>>>  sampling of
>>>>>>>>>  Hill Country women. The doctors found that, out of 275 women,
>158
>>>>>>>>>  had
>>>>>>>>>  perineal tears. Many of them, the team of gynecologists
>reported,
>>>>>>>>>  were
>>>>>>>>>  third-degree tears, “tears so bad that it is difficult to see
>how
>>>>>>>>>  they
>>>>>>>>>  stand on their feet.” But they were standing on their feet,
>and
>>>>>>>>>  doing all
>>>>>>>>>  the chores that Hill Country wives had always done – hauling
>the
>>>>>>>>>  water,
>>>>>>>>>  hauling the wood, canning, washing, ironing, helping with the
>>>>>>>>>  shearing,
>>>>>>>>>  the plowing and the picking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Because there was no electricity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  Bob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Hi Frantisek,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
>>>>>>>>>>>>  <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages
>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>  satcom
>>>>>>>>>>>>  such as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time,
>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>  overcome
>>>>>>>>>>>>  the 'tangled fiber' problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>  No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of
>>>>>>>>>>>>  digital
>>>>>>>>>>>>  divide -
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with
>the
>>>>>>>>>>>  goal to
>>>>>>>>>>>  make a profit by offering (usable) internet access
>essentially
>>>>>>>>>>>  everywhere; it is not as far as I can tell an attempt at
>>>>>>>>>>>  specifically
>>>>>>>>>>>  reducing the digital divide (were often an important factor
>is
>>>>>>>>>>>  not
>>>>>>>>>>>  necessarily location but financial means).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Every Inernet company " commercial enterprise with the goal
>to
>>>>>>>>>>  make a
>>>>>>>>>>  profit by offering (usable) internet" don't dismiss a
>company
>>>>>>>>>>  because
>>>>>>>>>>  of that. Starlink (and the other Satellite ISPs) all exist
>to
>>>>>>>>>>  service
>>>>>>>>>>  people who can't use traditional wired infrastructure
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>  literally
>>>>>>>>>>>>  none today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get
>there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>  it will
>>>>>>>>>>>>  be like 10 years down the road.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>    This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to
>be a
>>>>>>>>>>>  universal FTTH access network (with the exception of
>extreme
>>>>>>>>>>>  locations,
>>>>>>>>>>>  no need to pull fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on
>Mt.
>>>>>>>>>>>  Whitney).
>>>>>>>>>>>  And f that takes a decade or two, so be it, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>  infrastructure that
>>>>>>>>>>>  will keep on helping for many decades once rolled-out.
>However
>>>>>>>>>>>  given
>>>>>>>>>>>  that time frame one should consider work-arounds for the
>interim
>>>>>>>>>>>  period.
>>>>>>>>>>>  I would have naively thought starlink would qualify for
>that
>>>>>>>>>>>  from a
>>>>>>>>>>>  technical perspective, but then the FCC documents actually
>>>>>>>>>>>  discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>  requirements and how they were or were not met/promised by
>>>>>>>>>>>  starlink was
>>>>>>>>>>>  mostly redacted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  what do you consider 'extreme locations'? how long a run
>between
>>>>>>>>>>  houses is 'too far'?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  we've seen the failure of commercial fiber monopolies in
>cities
>>>>>>>>>>  with
>>>>>>>>>>  housing density of several houses per acre (and even where
>there
>>>>>>>>>>  are
>>>>>>>>>>  apartment complexes there as well) because it's not
>profitable
>>>>>>>>>>  enough.
>>>>>>>>>>  When you get into areas where it's 'how many acres per
>house' the
>>>>>>>>>>  cost
>>>>>>>>>>  of running FTTH gets very high. I don't think this is the
>>>>>>>>>>  majority of
>>>>>>>>>>  the population of the US any longer (but I don't know for
>sure),
>>>>>>>>>>  but
>>>>>>>>>>  it's very clearly the majority of the area of the US. And
>once
>>>>>>>>>>  you get
>>>>>>>>>>  out of the major metro areas, even getting fiber to every
>town or
>>>>>>>>>>  village becomes a major undertaking.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Is running fiber 30 miles to support a village of 700 people
>an
>>>>>>>>>>  'extreme location'? let me introduce you to Vermontville MI
>>>>>>>>>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermontville,_Michigan which
>is
>>>>>>>>>>  less
>>>>>>>>>>  than an hours drive from the state capitol.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  David Lang
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  Nnagain mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>  Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>>>>>  https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Starlink mailing list
>>>>>>  Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>>>  https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22414 bytes --]