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 1C5A53CB41; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 23:16:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from dlang-mobile (unknown [10.2.2.69]) by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E781BCF8E; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 20:16:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 20:16:17 -0800 (PST) From: David Lang To: Dave Taht cc: David Lang , rjmcmahon , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net, "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Network_Neutrality_is_back!_Let=B4s_make_the?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?=" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="228850167-2092429140-1702700178=:5207" 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: Sat, 16 Dec 2023 04:16:19 -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. --228850167-2092429140-1702700178=:5207 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT to be very clear, I am in no way saying that anyone's (let alone saying women's) views are not desired. I think a diversity of views if extremely valuable. I just get my back up when people say things like 'there need to more X in charge' (for any value of X that refers to a characteristic that someone is born with) David Lang On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Dave Taht wrote: > This is principally a male dominated list, and I in general assume > that the public debate over fiber, bandwidth, etc, etc skews heavily > male also. > > It is a very good set of questions to ask about how the internet > should be structured to best meet the needs of both sexes, and how > that has changed over time, and may change in the future! I hesitate > to even make one overbroad conclusion! Permanent connectivity and > messaging seems more important to women than men, and a phone more > important than fiber. Security (tracking and/or protecting kids), > also. It is something I would rather research than draw premature > conclusions from. > > https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+men+and+women+use+the+internet+differently > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:42 PM David Lang via Starlink > 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 >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > > > --228850167-2092429140-1702700178=:5207--