[Starlink] [NNagain] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application
Alexandre Petrescu
alexandre.petrescu at gmail.com
Sat Dec 16 03:09:18 EST 2023
Hi, Sebastien,
Le 15/12/2023 à 14:06, Sebastian Moeller a écrit :
> Hi Alexandre,
>
>
>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:07, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 14/12/2023 à 19:51, Nathan Simington via Starlink a écrit :
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> (Apologies in advance to non-Americans or anyone who doesn't care about American home broadband policy! Please feel free to immediately delete!)
>>>
>>> I don't want to get overly political on this mailing list, but my statement on this topic is a matter of public record: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf. As this item is now closed, there is no risk of any impermissible side-barring ("ex partes" that would have to be filed on the record, in regulatory jargon) if anyone wants to discuss this.
>>>
>>> The FCC is funded through regulatory fees which, traditionally, fell predominantly on broadcasters and monopoly-era AT&T. This mechanism, or at least how we calculate it, is increasingly inapposite for a world in which so much video and voice traffic takes place via unregulated services. That's one reason the agency is shrinking even as the communications industry is growing. Another is that many of our necessary functions, such as RF emissions enforcement, are on a non-fee basis and thus short-term painless to cut (even if that means that we're abandoning oversight of a rising noise floor, or of a device world where post-licensure quality fade on emissions control is normal business practice.)
>>>
>>> I'm on the record as saying that the FCC should reallocate resources and seek additional money with the goal of hiring 500 more engineers and field enforcement staff. That number is probably too small, but it would be a good start ;-) I was horrified to learn recently, while researching my Title II statement, that the FCC essentially has no internal experts left on peering and transit. How in blazes was this allowed to happen? (I hired one of the handful left as my chief of staff, but that just makes her unavailable to the career staff, so...)
>>>
>>> On this specific issue, I think a reasonable person could look at current federal broadband programs and see a significant bias in favor of fiber to the home. Someone drawing that conclusion might point, in addition to StarLink's situation, to the specific exclusion of unlicensed-frequency fixed wireless from the BEAD program, in defiance of the current tech trends. Anyone finding bias there might further note that the federal government talks incessantly about line speed but never about traffic management or router firmware and conclude that technically shallow federal politicians have no better ideas than to resort to the same metric that ISPs use in their advertising.
>>>
>>> I don't always see eye to eye with TechFreedom, which is why I so appreciated their filing on the same NOI that some in this group were involved with filing on. Their filing noted that line speed is a misleading and inappropriate proxy for customer experience quality, though not in the detail of the engineering filers, and also pointed out (among other points) that selling broadband to the public on the basis of telehealth and education is belied by the traffic numbers, which show that entertainment uses predominate. Not that I have anything against entertainment, but the feds haven't been candid (and perhaps the public has allowed itself to be deceived as well) about the reality of how its enormous fiber infrastructure subsidy commitments will be used in practice.
>>>
>>> If we can provide good service to people without the huge lift of a universal fiber to the home build, then the United States is headed in the wrong direction and will be wasting a lot of public money. And, unlike StarLink, we still won't have connected Dave's boat :-)
>>>
>>> All best,
>>> Nathan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:49 PM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> FCC's staff continues to shrink. 1420-or-so employees in 2022,
>>> 1755-or-so in 2012, 1952-or-so in 2004. So about a 25% reduction
>>> over the last twenty years. There are several good people there
>>> among the staff, however they also face an increasing number of
>>> tasks and demands with less resources. Public service depends on
>>> folks being willing to step up and be of service.
>>>
>>> Also, ultimately it is the decision of the Commissioners. Staff
>>> can brief the Commissioners and present evidence, the
>>> Commissioners are there to make the policy decisions. Remember
>>> Commissioners are Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed which
>>> selects for certain things in keeping with our Constitution. For
>>> the staff, this means accepting that politics may supersede even
>>> the best technical briefing.
>>>
>>> Such is how representative governments work. And if you circle
>>> back to Plato's The Republic, the conclusion is such is how
>>> humanity wants it - we don't want a perfectly wise, benevolent,
>>> philosopher king. Each of us wants compromises - the difference
>>> being those specific compromises. Plato (through the voice of
>>> Socrates) also concludes humanity would probably kill a perfectly
>>> wise, benevolent, philosopher king if we were to ever have one -
>>> again because despite everyone saying they want this, they really
>>> only want such a person if that person agrees with them fully. Or
>>> as Tears for Fears aptly put it: "Everybody Wants to Rule the
>>> World" = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoFZaSuko4
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:00 AM Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
>>> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Robert. Exactly what I meant. Therefore I added NN
>>> list, because Nathan was engaging with us there, and with Dave
>>> (me and some others, to my knowledge) either directly or via
>>> his staffers and he really wanted to catch up on tech things
>>> that are the culprits of Net Neutrality (bufferbloat.)
>>>
>>> So instead of assuming that Nathan Simington and Brendan Carr
>>> are “bought” as someone did, I can the FCC itself as an entity
>>> can be understaffed at worse.
>>>
>>> But still, I appreciate efforts to learn about what’s going in
>>> here and getting it right.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon
>>> <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think this common in that appointment of commissioners
>>> go through a political process. The FCC has a technology
>>> group, too. When I worked with them about 8 years ago,
>>> they had skilled researchers on staff and a highly skilled
>>> director. They asked good questions about engineering
>>> decisions, like what is limiting the number of mimo
>>> streams on devices.
>>>
>>> Their physical facility is a bit dated, and they don't get
>>> stock grants. I respect the engineers I worked with for
>>> what they did.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 2:38 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain
>>> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would love for Nathan to be here with us, and
>>> comment on that :-) so I will add NN list as well.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy
>>> <dickroy3777 at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:*Starlink
>>> [mailto:starlink-bounces at lists.bufferbloat.net]
>>> *On Behalf Of *Frantisek Borsik via Starlink
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 13, 2023 1:26 PM
>>> *To:* Dave Taht via Starlink
>>> *Subject:* [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of
>>> Starlink’s RDOF Application
>>>
>>> “*Elon Musk*’s Starlink was not the only major
>>> company to inflate its capabilities
>>> <https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2021/04/rdof-reverse-auction-criticized-google-makes-pandemic-gains-california-broadband-access-for-k-12/> in
>>> RDOF bids. Nearly 100 bidders have defaulted since
>>> the auction, leaving in limbo an estimated $2.8
>>> billion
>>> <https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/06/what-happens-to-the-estimated-2-8-billion-in-rdof-defaults/> of
>>> the $9.2 billion originally awarded.
>>>
>>> The FCCupheld another denial
>>> <https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/fcc-proposes-22-million-fine-against-ltd-over-rdof/>on
>>> Monday in the case of LTD Broadband, which
>>> appealed the commission’s finding that it could
>>> not reasonably serve the more than 500,000
>>> locations to which it had committed. The
>>> commission also hit LTD with a $21.7 million fine
>>> for its default.
>>>
>>> The commission’s two Republicans dissented to
>>> Starlink’s denial, claiming they saw a path for
>>> the company to improve its speeds before the first
>>> deployment deadline in 2025.”
>>>
>>> */[RR] The reason two lawyers “saw a path” is
>>> because they were bribed/conned into to see it. In
>>> my nearly 50years of experience dealing with the
>>> FCC, extremely rarely are the people at the top in
>>> the commission tech savvy. In general, they have
>>> NO CLUE when it comes to technology … period! /**/JJ/*
>>>
>>> https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/fcc-upholds-denial-of-starlinks-rdof-application/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Frank
>>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>>
>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>> frantisek.borsik at gmail.com
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nathan Simington
>>> cell: 305-793-6899
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>>
>> For non-US country (France). The issue here about the fiber deployment is the too numerous disconnections, because they keep adding new connections, by third parties contracted by the real operators (its' not the operators who install). In a growing tele-work era that impacts a lot the economy.
>>
>> That continuous disconnection is a growing issue since some months if not years now. It is a public matter, with action from local regulatory body (ARCEP) imposed on operators.
>>
>> The reason of fiber disconnection is, I suspect, the 'tangled fiber' - they dont really know which fiber belongs to whom. When they install a new fiber, they often impact, or outright disconnect, an existing fiber. Re-installing takes time.
>>
>> (this 'tangled wires' is not particular to just fiber, it can be witnessed in other cables for public use;)
>>
>> On the positive side, the fiber installations they make (I saw it here) are somehow future proof. The bring not just one fiber, but 4 or 5 to a same subscriber ; they light only one, equalling 1gbit/s. It means that they could scale it up later to 4 or 5 gbit/s, without additional installation. At the current rate of growth, it might mean 10 years, if it does not accelerate.
>>
>> 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.
> Today er can push to hundreds of Gbps over a single strand of fiber,
Thanks, I did not know that.
I would like to clarify.
I am not sure what do you mean by 'strand'? I know that at home there
is a black 5mm-diameter cable which contains 4 or 5 transparent
hair-like fibers; each is maybe 1mm or less in diameter. Some people
call a fiber that 5mm black cable, or call 'fiber' just one of these
hairs. Each of these hair-like fiber can be cut but before connecting
it to another hair it must be aligned by a special handheld machine; it
appears to me to be an electronic microscope. In that way the fiber can
be extended with least loss, rather than IP routing.
Is a 'strand' that 'hair'?
I suspect that it is that hair-like fiber that can carry 1gbit/s,
because that's what I get at home.
It can also be, that it is on that same hair-like fiber that it can be
pushed even higher than 1gbit/s (you say hundreds of Gbps, and Gert said
Fiber7.ch delivers 25 gbit/s; a little bit like on copper lines they
went from 2.4kbit/s up to 20mbit/s). Or maybe the fiber hundreds of
gbit/s can be obtained from multiple such hairs, or maybe even multiple
5mm black cables.
I also heard of 'hollow' fibers talked about in the sat-int email list
at ietf. I never saw it in practice but many people talk about it and
its potential.
From another analsys I concluded that by year 2031 the optical lines
(fiber) might feature up to 1 petabit/s. (from a presentation titled
'optical cables roadmap' of January 2023).
> that is completely unrealistic to match from space.
Well, indeed it might appear so. One might hardly think of an
individual wireless radio link to an end user at 1 petabit/s in year
2031 from a constellation of sats.
But, I would like to clarify.
One is the electronics advancements, leading to transistors working ok
at hundreds of GHz spectrum, or even more. This translates in these
channel widths in the order of tens of GHz at this 140GHz range.
Another clarification is that of access: the fiber used to access (end
user link) should be compared to the end user links of sats. The fiber
used for 'metro'(politan) links should be compared to sat-to-sat links.
The year should be specified.
The evolution of power of computers and their energy efficiency (onboard
sats) as well as of the efficiency of energy sources, should be
considered as well.
Given that, I think it can still be imagined that a satcom access link
to be required to deliver same fiber access link bandwidth at a same
year. Maybe that year is not in the immediate.
> If the problem is wiring and cable organisation, that seems considerably easier and economic to fix than pushing all traffic via satellites.
It is a good consideration.
I think the wiring is not as easy to fix. There are many organisational
problems. Even a regulator cant impose that fixing, it does not work.
They gave us now an URL to tell the regulator whenever we have another
fiber disconnection (click on an URL when no connection, hmm...). I
dont bother calling the regulator. I do bother calling the ISP to fix
it, once again. I dont know for how long will I still bother calling
them about this.
I would say that it is as easy to fix these fiber wires as it is easy to
fix the decomissioning of sats, or the organisation of space overall.
> Don't get me wrong networking via LEO satellites is pretty cool and in some situations extremely valuable, but not a reasonable alternative for a FTTH network for most cases.
I do agree in large part. It is common sense.
It might be that my views wont happen. It's just forecasting.
Alex
>
> Regards
> Sebastian
>
>
>> Alex
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
More information about the Starlink
mailing list