[Starlink] [NNagain] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application

[David Fernández]

"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?"

I think that is a false dichotomy. It is not one or the other, but
both are needed, as discovered recently in Tonga, Ukraine, New
Zealand... Centralized systems are efficient, but everything fails if
they don't work.

Satellite communications are the equivalent for communications of this
for electricity:
https://www.shareable.net/introducing-the-emergency-battery-network-toolkit
I would consider even adding pedaling to the kit:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/use-your-bike-as-a-backup-to-your-backup-power-supply

You use satellite communications in remote locations or in case the
terrestrial network is not working or covering you (mobile and/or
fixed).

Regards,

David

> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 11:13:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Lang <david at lang.hm>
> To: rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon at rjmcmahon.com>
> Cc: " Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the
> 	=?ISO-8859-1?Q?_technical_aspects_heard_this_time!?="
> 	<nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net>,  Sebastian Moeller <moeller0 at gmx.de>,
> 	David Lang <david at lang.hm>,  starlink at lists.bufferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] [NNagain] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's
> 	RDOF Application
> Message-ID: <471154o6-no08-67or-p1o2-np919ro26osp at ynat.uz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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
>>>>> <nnagain at lists.bufferbloat.net> 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