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

[rjmcmahon <rjmcmahon@rjmcmahon.com>]

The president who ran Harvey Mudd College had to fix their computer 
science problem of a 90% to 10% male to female ratio. She was asked, 
"What's the goal?" She responded, "It should reflect to population so 
50/50." The others said, "Be realistic."

She was and she got it to 50/50 where it should be in every technology 
group.Though we have more improvements to be done.

https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/

There is now way to fix a problem without getting passed the denial 
phase. This list population, and the LEO worshiping of Musk displayed 
here by its constituents, are very much white male things. Not noticing 
this & staying silent on this shows a lack of integrity by the group. My 
judgment.

Bob
> 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
>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> 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
>>>>>>>>> <nnagain@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
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>