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 F35843B29D for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:40:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.rjmcmahon.com (bobcat.rjmcmahon.com [45.33.58.123]) by bobcat.rjmcmahon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0C8BD1B252; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:40:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 bobcat.rjmcmahon.com 0C8BD1B252 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rjmcmahon.com; s=bobcat; t=1699990804; bh=3nwjfjYPQKnmvFvQs3XHsTHUVVUQaTgpJA2OahEJJmc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S6yBgKZqj1ja4wXUNkPgzFdM6QM5HLSWlbRKLf1YGI7RjRXer46zdvIquMEdK4CIV 4eMMabwZ6Cuz4e+utFHsR6p3MVlIF6sefUPaND6W5LDvFxw6WL8Yyf2zJLPdKHlQiw XhZP0/lJ4JpB7sbh96D993fL2Rq4+jrHkoxSCn3Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:40:04 -0800 From: rjmcmahon To: =?UTF-8?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=C2=B4s_make_the_technical_a?= =?UTF-8?Q?spects_heard_this_time!?= In-Reply-To: References: <96DDD887-4AC2-4F11-9B49-5ED6FC3F5FA2@gmx.de> Message-ID: X-Sender: rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [NNagain] FCC NOI due dec 1 on broadband speed standards 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, 14 Nov 2023 19:40:05 -0000 Thanks for sharing this. I agree this works for researchers. I think we're at a different state and economic returns matter too. I sent the following to our engineers in hopes we can all better understand what we're all trying to accomplish. Hi All, The attached Notice of Inquiry by the FCC shows how much our work matters to most everyone in our country (and, by inference, worldwide.) Broadband networks are no longer entertainment or social networks but they are critical to all regardless of gender, age, race, ethnic group, etc. People's health, learning, and ability to earn for their families all depend on us providing world class engineering to our customers who in turn provide these networks for each and all of us, our friends & families, our neighbors, and most everyone else. Early in my career, I worked at Cisco and had the privilege to work on some of the first BGP routers that enabled the commercial build out of the internet, and I'm very thankful we did that way ahead of the 2019 pandemic. There was no "pandemic use case" that drove us - we just wanted to build the best products that engineers could build. A worldwide pandemic w/o the internet could have been disastrous - so that work by many in the mid 1990s seems to have paid off well. I hope you each realize, today, what you've accomplished since then and continue to be a part of. It's truly significant. It's been a high honor to work with so many of you over the last 14+ years. To the FCC report: We begin this annual inquiry in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic during which time Americans increasingly turned to their broadband connections to conduct their lives online by using telemedicine to access healthcare, working from home, attending classes remotely, connecting by video with out-of-town family and friends, and streaming entertainment. Our experiences with the pandemic made it clear that broadband is no longer a luxury but a necessity that will only become more important with time. Never before has the critical importance of ensuring that all Americans have access to high-speed, affordable broadband been more evident. Also note, we have more work to do. We need to increase resiliency as an example. Also, the thing I'm most passionate about is low latency. The FCC is now recognizing the importance of that. People are slowly learning why latency is becoming equally important to capacity when it comes to quality of service. Bob PS. The rest is TLDR but I thought I post some snippets for those interested We believe that in examining household use cases, a simple summation of required speeds for individual activities may provide a misleading picture of actual broadband needs for at least three reasons. First, we believe it is appropriate to take into account at least occasional downloads of very large files which can be bandwidth-intensive. Second, it is important to account for larger households; in 2022, approximately 21% of all U.S. households had four or more people, and the number of families seeking out multigenerational homes to live with additional relatives rose.57 Households of all sizes must have sufficient bandwidth to satisfy their needs. In addition, the number of connected devices per household continues to grow, from 18.6 in the average household in 2021 to 20.2 in the first half of 2022.58 Taking these factors into account suggests that fixed broadband download/upload needs could easily exceed 100/20 Mbps. ... Service Quality. We recognize that other factors, besides the speed of a broadband connection, can affect consumers’ ability to use the services effectively. Chief among these factors is latency, which is the measure of the time it takes a packet of data to travel from one point in the network to another, and which is typically measured by round-trip time in milliseconds (ms). As a measurement of advanced telecommunications capability, latency can be critical because it affects a consumer’s ability to use real-time applications, including voice over Internet Protocol, video calling, distance learningapplications, and online gaming. Actual (as opposed to advertised) speed received, consistency of speed, and data allowances are also important. Such factors are not simply a matter of service interruptions and consumer satisfaction—they have a real and significant effect on Americans’ ability to use critical web-based applications, including those that facilitate telehealth, telework, and virtual learning. > In the beginning days of the Arpanet, circa early 1970s, ARPA made a > policy decision about use of the Arpanet. First, Arpa Program > Managers, located on the East Coast of the US, were assigned computer > accounts on USC-ISIA, located on the West Coast in LA. Thus to do > their work, exchanging email, editting documents, and such, they had > to *use* the Arpanet to connect their terminals in Washington to the > PDP-10 in California - 3000 miles away. > > Second, ARPA began requiring all of their contractors (researchers at > Universities etc.) to interact with Arpa using email and FTP. If > your site was "on the Arpanet", you had to use the Arpanet. If you > wanted your proposal for next year's research to be funded, you had to > submit your proposal using the net. > > This policy caused a profound attention, by everyone involved, to > making the Arpanet work and be useful as a collaboration tool. > > JCR Licklider (aka Lick) was my advisor at MIT, and then my boss when > I joined the Research Staff. Lick had been at ARPA for a while, > promoting his vision of a "Galactic Network" that resulted in the > Arpanet as a first step. At MIT, Lick still had need for lots of > interactions with others. My assignment was to build and operate the > email system for Lick's group at MIT on our own PDP-10. Lick had a > terminal in his office and was online a lot. If email didn't work, I > heard about it. If the Arpanet didn't work, BBN heard about it. > > This pressure was part of Arpa policy. Sometimes it's referred to as > "eating your own dog food" -- i.e., making sure your "dog" will get > the same kind of nutrition you enjoy. IMHO, that pressure policy was > important, perhaps crucial, to the success of the Arpanet. > > In the 70s, meetings still occurred, but a lot of progress was made > through the use of the Arpanet. You can only do so much with email > and file interactions. Today, the possibilities for far richer > interactions are much more prevalent. But IMHO they are held back, > possibly because no one is feeling the pressure to "make it work". > Gigabit throughputs are common, but why does my video and audio still > break up...? > > It's important to have face-to-face meetings, but perhaps if the IETF > scheduled a future meeting to be online only, whatever needs to happen > to make it work would happen? Perhaps... > > Even a "game" might drive progress. At Interop '92, we resurrected > the old "MazeWars" game using computers scattered across the show > exhibit halls. The engineers in the control room above the floor felt > the pressure to make sure the Game continued to run. At the time, the > Internet itself was too slow for enjoyable gameplay at any distance. > Will the Internet 30 years later work? > > Or perhaps the IETF, or ISOC, or someone could take on a highly > visible demo involving non-techie end users. An online meeting of > the UN General Assembly? Or some government bodies - US Congress, > British Parliament, etc. > > Such an event would surface the issues, both technical and policy, to > the engineers, corporations, policy-makers, and others who might have > the ability and interest to "make it work". > > Jack > > On 11/14/23 10:10, Sebastian Moeller wrote: > >> Hi Jack, >> >>> On Nov 14, 2023, at 13:02, Jack Haverty via Nnagain >>> wrote: >>> >>> If video conferencing worked well enough, they would not have to >>> all get together in one place and would instead hold IETF meetings >>> online ...? >> >> [SM] Turns out that humans are social creatures, and some things >> work better face-to-face and in the hallway (and if that is only >> building trust and sympathy) than over any remote technology. >> >>> Did anyone measure latency? Does anyone measure throughput of >>> "useful" traffic - e.g., excluding video/audio data that didn't >>> arrive in time to be actually used on the screen or speaker? >> >> [SM] Utility is in the eye of the beholder, no? >> >> Jack Haverty >> >> On 11/14/23 09:25, Vint Cerf via Nnagain wrote: >> >> if they had not been all together they would have been consuming >> tons of video capacity doing video conference calls.... >> >> :-)) >> v >> >> On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 10:46 AM Livingood, Jason via Nnagain >> wrote: >> On the subject of how much bandwidth does one household need, here's >> a fun stat for you. >> >> At the IETF’s 118th meeting last week (Nov 4 – 10, 2023), there >> were over 1,000 engineers in attendance. At peak there were 870 >> devices connected to the WiFi network. Peak bandwidth usage: >> >> • Downstream peak ~750 Mbps >> • Upstream ~250 Mbps >> >> From my pre-meeting Twitter poll >> (https://twitter.com/jlivingood/status/1720060429311901873): >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >> >> -- >> Please send any postal/overnight deliveries to: >> Vint Cerf >> Google, LLC >> 1900 Reston Metro Plaza, 16th Floor >> Reston, VA 20190 >> +1 (571) 213 1346 >> >> until further notice >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ > Nnagain mailing list > Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain