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 6209D3CB41; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 17:05:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 84E621B25E; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:05:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 84E621B25E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1702677904; bh=ztINz/C0ryJ4pIqubU96G+XHPB+y2w6nJk1EPiG6hko=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Geva6llTVacOtoyg2aYhX2OSEPiCOV+C/2SQdbBdS8tXFA8LR39cA9KxBiy3GoQIE eTyfzl/F/hLltzBtxf0SbVTtzlNwWCXI9KOJdpm/YKcMm7cM3Vtg3nPQyFj9I0QeGc owdi4LHo0i74ki9DEKacnhHIO0rzcXXm2qtd6n7E= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:05:04 -0800 From: rjmcmahon To: David Lang Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_a?= =?UTF-8?Q?spects_heard_this_time!?= , Sebastian Moeller , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: <4p61qp8r-p1p1-r83r-n283-315548o163po@ynat.uz> 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: 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: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 22:05:05 -0000 I surveyed some female telehealth providers. There are a lot of subtleties required to make telehealth work well for the providers. Their knowledge level is quite fascinating. I don't see their voices here on these boards either. In education, the absence of something being taught is called the null curriculum. This group has a huge null curriculum w/respect to female voices - though that's my perspective. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/reimagining-the-null-curriculum Bob > 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 >>>> >>