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

["Kenline, Doug" <dkenline@cogentco.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10691 bytes --]

I’m a Return-to-Office worker and we come in to the office to do our in-person meetings on Zoom.

The conference rooms are only used for storage now.

Doug



From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 5:13 PM
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: David Bray, PhD <david.a.bray@gmail.com>; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application


CAUTION: This email originated from an external sender! Do not click the links, open attachments or reply, unless you recognize/trust the sender's email address and know the content is safe!


This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt:  >>why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?

As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized for the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday.

Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead!


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm<mailto:david@lang.hm>> wrote:
I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was on the
topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming that we
needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of telehealth
as well.

I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are compared to
in-person meetings.

David Lang

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:

> There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long as
> it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv founder
> Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
> ground-based connections too.
>
> That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental health
> services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless of
> LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
>
> * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
> patient developing a relationship with a health provider
>
> * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
> might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
> showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually a
> continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by the
> body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
> foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t know
> if they’re coming to attack us or not.
>
> So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
> were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@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<mailto: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<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18336 bytes --]