From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Dave Taht via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] some chatter about the fcc news
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:02:34 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <823sr28n-sq14-ro91-029r-p9o622o7nnrs@ynat.uz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw4cpJCAKvqwuBtWeJF09K1pSZcwhUTL8gkzTkQ86Z1GmA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2258 bytes --]
they are trying to make it so WISP and especially Starlink don't qualify as
'broadband'
David Lang
On Tue, 19 Mar 2024, Dave Taht via Nnagain wrote:
> from brett glass:
>
> https://www.broadband.io/c/get-broadband-grant-alerts-news/it-s-on-fcc-officially-increases-its-broadband-speed-requirement-to-100-20-mbps#comment_wrapper_32464006
>
> This decision is the equivalent of saying, “If you don’t have a
> Cadillac, you don’t have a car.”
>
> It also confuses “speed” (an ill-defined term) with capacity, latency,
> jitter, and other factors which do matter, and ridiculously overstates
> the amount of bandwidth needed for common Internet activities. Unless,
> of course, the service is very bad, in which case you can compensate
> somewhat - not completely - by throwing more bandwidth at the problem.
>
> In short, it’s a bad decision, made by politicians who have most
> likely been deceived by corporate lobbyists, rather than the sort of
> rational decision that would be made if the FCC were an apolitical
> expert agency. Or if the Commissioners had even consulted a
> knowledgeable practicing network engineer. (Are there any engineers
> left at the FCC? Or have most of them, like Julie Knapp, retired after
> being frustratingly ignored?)
>
> For my company, a WISP, it means deploying more expensive equipment
> than I need to, when folks don’t need the capacity. (Our quality is so
> good that most of our customers peak at 5-10 Mbps of capacity - the
> data rate is still typically 200-500 Mbps - and don’t need to pay for
> more, though some do.) This depletes capital, needlessly increases the
> cost of broadband service and discourages uptake of service (we still
> see a lot of folks who rely entirely on cell phones and tethering).
> Yet another example of destructive overregulation and government
> bureaucracy. Government should stay out of the broadband business and
> quit meddling with it. It’s not competent and is doing a LOT more harm
> than good.
>
>
> --
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Tmvv5jJKs Epik Mellon Podcast
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-19 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-19 15:50 Dave Taht
2024-03-19 16:02 ` David Lang [this message]
2024-03-19 16:06 ` Mark Steckel
2024-03-19 16:08 ` David Lang
2024-03-19 22:57 ` Livingood, Jason
2024-03-19 23:22 ` rjmcmahon
2024-03-19 18:27 ` Nathan Simington
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.bufferbloat.net/postorius/lists/nnagain.lists.bufferbloat.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=823sr28n-sq14-ro91-029r-p9o622o7nnrs@ynat.uz \
--to=david@lang.hm \
--cc=nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox