From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.lang.hm (045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com [45.59.245.186]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D2693B2A4 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 12:02:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.3.133]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476411C9140; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:02:34 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 09:02:34 -0700 (PDT) From: David Lang To: Dave Taht via Nnagain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <823sr28n-sq14-ro91-029r-p9o622o7nnrs@ynat.uz> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="228850167-321996662-1710864154=:4543" Subject: Re: [NNagain] some chatter about the fcc news 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: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 16:02:35 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --228850167-321996662-1710864154=:4543 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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 --228850167-321996662-1710864154=:4543--