From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bosmailout06.eigbox.net (bosmailout06.eigbox.net [66.96.187.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD2673B29D for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2024 17:26:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from bosmailscan07.eigbox.net ([10.20.15.7]) by bosmailout06.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rj59Z-0002Kj-Ty for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 17:26:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=alum.mit.edu; s=dkim; h=Sender:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:In-Reply-To:References:To:From:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=X8F4LpGnJxXC06JiQH9JHQ9jHItN+ZWVKtn9PGconiE=; b=Lzkzu2KpWumnq1SBkaVHKWvkRU Ud48F/DsnOqeJbwAyo5f7INdzyj+WXf3179BKhlRvLI5zOkz7SDlnvm2cmTkJ58paAXzZeGw1RmVU +qkMpAPjGVW6a9+uehRif1Ey0Wh9HrZ3wAs3V7wN88YVRaMw4chpafq8V2jiEWxR37WPg6Ac0m7ol Ap/tUGMdACSEU5ydv69YYtTYVVA1rU1wwaIsnqgysbr5tPp6st2zmFVl8ZcFumfusu7+/CVrra/Z5 R0Q+Mthkxw8m2vbfPp7/xN76ZzNDI1GxWVAwJSsbj4DhTP3iQx5sJsTLzGNl85cX9SpmVBScKGBJN e8+2lArw==; Received: from [10.115.3.33] (helo=bosimpout13) by bosmailscan07.eigbox.net with esmtp (Exim) id 1rj59X-00070L-SX for nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 17:26:51 -0500 Received: from bosauthsmtp12.yourhostingaccount.com ([10.20.18.12]) by bosimpout13 with id wmSo2B0020FdZ9W01mSr66; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 17:26:51 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=Q6tJH7+a c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=wx0GOVZTcu8EuaXTIXj3VQ==:117 a=tKttg/DTfI8zZz0UFxdR5w==:17 a=K6JAEmCyrfEA:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=usUTcz4nAAAA:8 a=W6MEE51cAAAA:8 a=kurRqvosAAAA:8 a=SvCMdYHu8NLrpF-D4kYA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=44s1J8HGLUSXmCk8XKcA:9 a=QPVk1g78aCP_ENln:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 a=pqlLer8jh793Akgwpnhr:22 a=NWVoK91CQySWRX1oVYDe:22 a=MqnEBYhnR1GEXjMu-uAJ:22 a=LhyfwtUod607kEnlAdyM:22 a=kbxRQ_lfPIoQnHsAj2-A:22 Received: from c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([73.158.253.41]:55237 helo=SRA6) by bosauthsmtp12.eigbox.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1rj59U-0001YG-94; Sat, 09 Mar 2024 17:26:48 -0500 Reply-To: From: "Dick Roy" To: "'Robert McMahon'" , "'Dick Roy via Nnagain'" References: <6BE25389766648E5AA898A86F4937D34@SRA6> <03cb3495-5f60-4a13-ae75-60bb92a5b867@rjmcmahon.com> In-Reply-To: <03cb3495-5f60-4a13-ae75-60bb92a5b867@rjmcmahon.com> Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2024 14:26:45 -0800 Organization: SRA Message-ID: <6DB25029C84949F28089FFF85B2F88B7@SRA6> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0187_01DA722D.D23B7E20" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AdpyZILx52Xf6kGsQwic/HZb+IEdngACp81A X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE X-EN-UserInfo: f809475445fb8041985048e338e1a001:931c98230c6409dcc37fa7e93b490c27 X-EN-AuthUser: dickroy@intellicommunications.com Sender: "Dick Roy" X-EN-OrigIP: 73.158.253.41 X-EN-OrigHost: c-73-158-253-41.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading) 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, 09 Mar 2024 22:26:56 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0187_01DA722D.D23B7E20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit _____ From: Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com] Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2024 12:58 PM To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain Subject: Re: [NNagain] Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality (LightReading) What is DSRC? [RR] Don't get me started! :-(:-(:-( Very simply it is the optimal technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet today . aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz . think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an 8-year old technology that does not work and on which a single company has a majority of the IPR. Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100's of millions of dollars to execute this con job, and unfortunately it's working. DSRC products were available more than 8 years ago and would have been on the roads today (and in handsets) in large numbers saving lives, but that wasn't good enough for that company because they stand to get >10x in royalty fees if and when the FCC mandates their technology. When the general public becomes aware of this con, and fully understands the impact, they should be and will be outraged! Think "DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing" . it's exactly the same thing . just the names have been changed. Watch it if you haven't already! Contact me if you want more details! I am looking for any and ALL help I can get to expose this fraud. Cheers, RR DSRC (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication technology that enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other road users directly, without involving cellular or other infrastructure. DSRC is based on WiFi technology https://auto-talks.com/technology/dsrc-technology/#:~:text=What%20is%20DSRC% 3F,involving%20cellular%20or%20other%20infrastructure. On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain wrote: . As expected this technique is designed to allow exactly what NN was designed to prohibit (treating packets differentially in the internet based on economic considerations*)... this is IMHO why instead of calling a spade a spade mobile carriers avoid describing this in a useful way, as it is exactly about prioritisation... IMHO that will back fire, and a better avenue would be to be open about what it enables and propose a method to restrict the potential issues. E.g. (I am making this up on the fly, so it will likely not hold up to any degree of scrutiny) by self limiting to never commit more than X% of a cell's capacity to slicing, IFF the cell is used for normal end user service at all. So admit that there is some trade-off here, limit the fall-out, and then describe why we as a society should embrace that trade-off. I am a bit sceptical about the whole car 2 car communication thing (that is cars talk to cars, not people n cars talk to people on cars ;) ), but if a Carrier believes there is value in that for e.g. accident avoidance, then tell how this requires the stricter network guarantees that (only?) slicing can deliver. [RR] V2X communications for saving lives will NEVER go through ANY carrier's network in spite of what you hear. There is simply no way anyone is going to pay to have BSMs broadcast 10 times a second to prevent accidents, and NO CARRIER is going to give that capacity away for free, even if they had enough to carry the traffic, which they do not by many orders of magnitude!!! More importantly, the information being exchanged does NOT require a network to get where it needs to go! The 5G hype you hear from various carriers and equipment suppliers related to V2X communications is all powerpoint BS (to make shareholders happy). And there is a ton of it out there! :-):-) RR _____ Nnagain mailing list Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain ------=_NextPart_000_0187_01DA722D.D23B7E20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

 

From: = Robert McMahon [mailto:rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 9, = 2024 12:58 PM
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu; Dick Roy via Nnagain
Subject: Re: [NNagain] = Verizon, T-Mobile, Nokia get noisy on network slicing and net neutrality = (LightReading)

 

 

What is = DSRC?

[RR] Don’t get me started! = LLL  Very simply it is = the optimal technology for V2X comms (it is in over 11 billion devices on the planet = today … aka Wi-Fi at 5.9GHz … think 802.11a) that has been shelved here in = the US (temporarily if I have anything to say about it) in favor of an 8-year = old technology that does not work and on which a single company has a majority of the = IPR.  Surprise, surprise, that company has invested 100’s of millions of dollars = to execute this con job, and unfortunately it’s working.  DSRC products = were available more than 8 years ago and would have been on the roads today (and in = handsets) in large numbers saving lives, but that wasn’t good enough for that = company because they stand to get >10x in royalty fees if and when the FCC = mandates their technology.  When the general public becomes aware of this = con, and fully understands the impact, they should be and will be outraged! Think = “DOWNFALL: The Case Against Boeing”  … it’s exactly the same = thing … just the names have been changed.  Watch it if you haven’t = already!

Contact me if you want more = details!  I am looking for any and ALL help I can get to expose this = fraud.

Cheers,<= /b>

RR =



DSRC = (Dedicated Short-Range Communications) is a wireless communication technology that = enables vehicles to communicate with each other and other road users directly, = without involving cellular or other infrastructure. DSRC is based on WiFi = technology


On Mar 9, 2024, at 12:42 PM, Dick Roy via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

 

 

…

 

As expected this technique is designed to allow exactly what NN = was designed to prohibit (treating packets differentially in the internet based on = economic considerations*)... this is IMHO why instead of calling a spade a spade = mobile carriers avoid describing this in a useful way, as it is exactly about prioritisation... IMHO that will back fire, and a better avenue would be = to be open about what it enables and propose a method to restrict the = potential issues. E.g. (I am making this up on the fly, so it will likely not hold = up to any degree of scrutiny) by self limiting to never commit more than X% of = a cell's capacity to slicing, IFF the cell is used for normal end user = service at all. So admit that there is some trade-off here, limit the fall-out, and = then describe why we as a society should embrace that trade-off. I am a bit sceptical about the whole car 2 = car communication thing (that is cars talk to cars, not people n cars talk = to people on cars ;) ), but if a Carrier believes there is value in that = for e.g. accident avoidance, then tell how this requires the stricter network = guarantees that (only?) slicing can deliver.

[RR] V2X communications for saving lives will NEVER go through ANY = carrier’s network in spite of what you hear.  There is simply no way anyone is going = to pay to have BSMs broadcast 10 times a second to prevent accidents, and NO = CARRIER is going to give that capacity away for free, even if they had enough to = carry the traffic, which they do not by many orders of magnitude!!!  More importantly, the information being exchanged does NOT require a network = to get where it needs to go!  The 5G hype you hear from various carriers = and equipment suppliers related to V2X communications is all powerpoint BS = (to make shareholders happy). And there is a ton of it out there! = JJ

 =

RR









Nnagain mailing list

Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net

https://lists.buf=
ferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
------=_NextPart_000_0187_01DA722D.D23B7E20--