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

["David Bray, PhD" <david.a.bray@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10218 bytes --]

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> 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> 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> 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
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> Nnagain mailing list
> >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>
> >

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14266 bytes --]