From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EFFB3B29D; Sat, 16 Dec 2023 12:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 139CE1B25E; Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:30:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 139CE1B25E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1702747841; bh=powKZchjN0xisuyKM+slR/BBCUSQrt3T6ymk38kEYd0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CPPlGeBJtynVUKiLZ9t3Uj/Y/OTCYPF7YaKGP9axMCwPQMrB1xt0MzqrKiGntzbVP Y7G2Jni3UrhtZXdkv7ehBOVykJmHt7PE0ErunMGgKZZ7+Jhcwbe3spNb3n7F3deyO7 /pfVxcKY2P2xSnYfH5VLQ66lWqPZhBOAGLOBxBxo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:30:41 -0800 From: rjmcmahon To: David Lang Cc: Dave Taht , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspec?= =?UTF-8?Q?ts_heard_this_time!?= In-Reply-To: References: <55037f9a-bc2c-4bbb-a4bb-47ad30f16190@rjmcmahon.com> <02cc2879-ef99-4388-bc1e-335a4aaff6aa@gmail.com> <18A40E71-F636-41A9-A8A7-0F4F69E3C99F@gmx.de> <650s1558-6310-063q-s5q2-o782rnnoss29@ynat.uz> <471154o6-no08-67or-p1o2-np919ro26osp@ynat.uz> <05ef1cd50d0e0a681b2cd38b1bdeb0a9@rjmcmahon.com> <4p61qp8r-p1p1-r83r-n283-315548o163po@ynat.uz> Message-ID: <3b1dac448b6590029679a7c22516c40c@rjmcmahon.com> X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application X-BeenThere: nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: =?utf-8?q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?= List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 17:30:42 -0000 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 >> 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 >>>>>>>>> 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 >> >> >> >>