[Bloat] [Cerowrt-devel] a start at the FCC filing

Fri Mar 5 01:15:53 EST 2021

Start with Ron Wyden

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am planning to take my time on this. I would like for example, to
> at least communicate well with a republican senator and a democratic one.
>
> Admittedly, if we can upgrade everybody to 100Mbit, everybody can have
> all 4 home members being couch potatoes in front of HD netflix and
> there won't be much motivation to do anything else.
>
>
> https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/senators-call-on-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds
>
> Anybody know these guys?
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM David P. Reed <dpreed at deepplum.com> wrote:
> >
> > This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow.
> >
> >
> >
> > I strongly recommend trying to find a way to make sure it doesn't become
> a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisans. (this is hard
> for me, because my politics are more aligned with the Left than with the
> self-described conservatives and right-wing libertarians.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is based on personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing
> through 2012 or so with two issues:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. Open Spectrum (using computational radio networking to make a
> scalable framework for dense wireless extremely wideband internetworking).
> I along with a small number of others started this as a non-partisan
> effort. It became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a
> socialist taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it became
> an issue where a subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decided to
> make it a wedge issue in political form. (It should be noted that during
> this time, a Republican Secretary of Commerce took up the idea of making
> UWB legal, and fought off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting
> regulation was ineffective because it was too weak to be usable).
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really
> about keeping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about
> what packets they would deliver and what ones they would not. The design of
> the Internet was completely based on open carriage of all packets without
> the routers billing for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again,
> for a variety of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship
> politically - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be
> promoting both Democratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact,
> the case for Open Internet is not primarily political. It's about
> scalability of the infrastructure and the ability to carry Internet packets
> over any concatenation of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That
> "mutual benefit" concept does seem to be alien to a certain kind of
> individualist libertarian cult thinking that is a small subset of
> Republican Party membership).
> >
> >
> >
> > If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will
> encounter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction,
> and also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue
> Dog Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of
> funding to those Democrats).
> >
> >
> >
> > Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their
> "platform" as a partisan issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > It may feel nice to have some of them on your side. Like you aren't
> alone. But by accepting this "help" on this issue, you may be guaranteeing
> its failure.
> >
> >
> >
> > In a world where compromise is allowed to generate solutions to
> problems, polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, rather
> merely raising the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is important
> and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not
> partisan. Its designers weren't party members or loyalists. We were solving
> a problem of creating a scalable, efficient alternative to the "Bell
> System" model of communications where every piece of gear got involved in
> deciding what to do with each bit of information, where there were "voice
> bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and "residential bits", and every
> piece of equipment had to be told everything about each bits (through call
> setup).
> >
> >
> >
> > But today, compromise is not considered possible, even at the level of
> defining the problem!
> >
> >
> >
> > So this simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that has
> grown like weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access
> provider" will become political.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and revenues
> to edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate pipes, the
> natural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents,
> funded by equipment providers for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lucent
> and their competitors), with Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats carrying
> their water. That's tthe likely polarization axis. I can say that
> Progressive members of the Democratic Party will love to have a new issue
> to raise funds. I can make the argument that it should be supported by
> Republicans or Independents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats
> and Progressives, and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them.
> >
> >
> >
> > Either way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party
> Loyalist issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > So please look that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support in the
> mouth when it comes.
> >
> >
> >
> > Accept the support, ONLY if you can be assured it isn't accompanied by a
> use in polarization of the issue. In other words, if you can get support
> from Republicans, too.
> >
> >
> >
> > Since I am neither an R or a D, I'd be happy to support it however it is
> supported. Personally, I don't want it to be affiliated with stances on
> abortion rights, or defunding the police, etc. I have views on those
> issues, but they aren't issues that should be conflated with openness of
> the Internet.
> >
> >
> >
> > (Since many seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and
> Right or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core political view has
> always been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the
> same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that
> organization of functions in society "organically" is better than any
> governmental approach. This view is compatible with the Internet's founding
> principles. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of
> power, each in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to either.
> That Socialists want to create centralized power just as much as
> Conservatives do. But making decentralized structures work isn't just a
> matter of creating a distributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact
> those things lead to centralizing power very efficiently.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <dave.taht at gmail.com>
> said:
> >
> > > Link below:
> > >
> > > If anyone would care to edit or comment. I really struggled with a
> > > means to present an
> > > "upgrade in place" in a uniformly positive manner. I had to cut out a
> > > lot of cusswords.
> > >
> > >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=sharing
> > >
> > > Secondly, I also decided that I didn't care so much about having to
> > > submit this in the context (and noise) of the rural broadband thing,
> > > so the pressure came off me to get it done by feb 20, with the
> > > inevitable outcome of me not getting on it til this morning. :/
> > >
> > > Getting there, but it's been kind of lonely... I can do a
> > > videoconference today between now and 11AM
> > > if anyone would like to join in at:
> > > https://tun.taht.net:8443/group/bufferbloat and will be back online
> > > tonight after 6PM.
> > >
> > > That said, it would be good to fire this off there, and/or do an "open
> > > letter", do a press release, and open up more shots at whatever
> > > government orgs we can aim at.
> > >
> > > PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough into my
> > > patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and longer term, if this
> > > develops into something good, we can do a bake sale for a press
> > > release.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
> > > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman
> > >
> > > dave at taht.net <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list
> > > Cerowrt-devel at lists.bufferbloat.net
> > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
> > >
>
>
>
> --
> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
> relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman
>
> dave at taht.net <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729
> _______________________________________________
> Bloat mailing list
> Bloat at lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/bloat/attachments/20210304/d1f12890/attachment.html>