From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA5F63CB39 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 08:06:16 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.de; s=s31663417; t=1702645574; x=1703250374; i=moeller0@gmx.de; bh=PRBh+aTmuSD+7a/GaWpUSsIB34G4R1YAY/clgt4dnIs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References: To; b=ScZhT/EIu0mjH09IHvAYWPXJ7w43CzeyAFjhe/sX6v1YfMnV2QkeGX8VJbarAECq cOa5xlyg//+KwL/9V7j5P92JYjgLylHqf7Tu1vWLcDg5d1VPAEhpoOxaTxoUXoOgN 7OkXOwAk8CsldaNrSZwJsOa6bOa4DT7Cxk5dYXMOr1oyNLDZ1DXZtqKe+W2nZj+RR AG7yVisAz9q/Lkylz+uXcxtNsSSze3g2U38QiZU9MYVMIVSCx+I4Q9GO2/Tgx5/Oo L2BAXMWENRHAcy/YdmmhkKtlu90Ax4JgRqV27L08hliMdZSaN5uODalxMCer22fFD hQv81EfeGXTuG0bCig== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Received: from smtpclient.apple ([134.76.241.253]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx105 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1N4hvb-1rMkML28r1-011kT3; Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:06:14 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\)) From: Sebastian Moeller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 14:06:13 +0100 Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <55037f9a-bc2c-4bbb-a4bb-47ad30f16190@rjmcmahon.com> To: Alexandre Petrescu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3696.120.41.1.4) X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:AkCNAV3mQst4/w2YaC3M4BGqRZe3KZuApF8v61HkDbm7WLQ9sEU m1yQSvyyNuL/3W06x1LaVNo5rtkMmsctTs14mivVoeAgtBAW/5qhX1lVYB/xhFIjsUiPpNv lbiwXePUVQVB3fasVNoSIc0YBJZrdXVnV8DL3KGShD6I1dI2oIsAwC06sDv4j0uSbaclXhb aiioBHsX8xioNFQKm5o3g== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:JTJeFS7zzZ8=;/Hy/L48W+0fU/exvaYsqQylV0U5 2Q+qJudzeJT/5Xf2G5914xzODuhotqfcwoq+9O8q4CeJ1pQ5MyZLO7u5/XIFED2/rsyY8Of11 sApK4klu2jw+ZO7hB23DWo6KJUkeWpb87P0a1vK8bsf84oaE0ANBOy3VzcMurencbkPWoGGaU hPlDXz8s/655aZf7BdsE8Z/9ar+vZ3rUwyniAIRRQwI8I5aHrNucU3t/wM3oX9JaLHawNK+Tv VGCMTPlC6eYnbA5n6Zk2XJSYC9f+9YA/EHiBVKuBHdvVjE00wi6bML5t6cK3A4paBxE+KHf2p 72antflVvsWS9tK/QRGD1a0Wq7cV1zFQxiF4OepVEOgCSthIa34ckKfNZSbXyoGlUR2OBnqQt Jdo57fQqyPoTIWoZj+d0kWjuGlXTi8QKVi/5TSOpWYNNF1ay71Bc5eat5+6YAF1iKp+AyaINq 6/hktQEq8JM3xYId/EB3aqiQgqZymLEINytSB7mBdouZz4NtWd9pdvevwAfLNq9YKNQSF3nUS 81HnaojgFF4K2BcQ3/MGm1cJ9W7I8sJCFf7Avj6fnV+ggwb0+bFOBmvLbbip0RGbHfozcsTeP GT/Xmh3GeYiNvYq8S6mFrtJHFhVtIox44fonbTmKDw83fHN4eaafR1ruxQqG1biEuioWLHrTh Wg5aeu91wqFT+bkYYggTJXhyyjuvqN6vEISfNyZ0h5/q3H/j8OwOSdzKwFQz/bLZ7OaEYgJZD VKZKwdz1wFG76uL9YPdIIEa6sixXzPDazyErBVmmpThDL+5i6FXqbL67LN2hDDP2Lnzu0mON5 HfnAjd+ZlLtVLSBoFDuS0tkl1NUp5gkgs+oXV5vfslvD69K9x8KRuxE8hJgLih/zqTBYmDRGd 9lqKsa6CBXgLYDxKF5RtCMvKlrFtyDl3SYbJ6CIKoonDFa6mekN9agkLIST8e+yzqz8+r5bF7 pQGJQjWbVwBjdmap2Z+2cy2r4TQ= Subject: Re: [Starlink] [NNagain] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:06:17 -0000 Hi Alexandre, > On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:07, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Le 14/12/2023 =C3=A0 19:51, Nathan Simington via Starlink a =C3=A9crit = : >> Hi folks, >>=20 >> (Apologies in advance to non-Americans or anyone who doesn't care = about American home broadband policy! Please feel free to immediately = delete!) >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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.) >>=20 >> 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...) >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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 :-) >>=20 >> All best, >> Nathan >>=20 >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 12:49=E2=80=AFPM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain = wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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" =3D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DawoFZaSuko4 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 1:00=E2=80=AFAM Frantisek Borsik via = Nnagain >> wrote: >>=20 >> 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.) >>=20 >> So instead of assuming that Nathan Simington and Brendan Carr >> are =E2=80=9Cbought=E2=80=9D as someone did, I can the FCC = itself as an entity >> can be understaffed at worse. >>=20 >> But still, I appreciate efforts to learn about what=E2=80=99s = going in >> here and getting it right. >>=20 >> All the best, >>=20 >> Frank >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>=20 >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >> Skype: casioa5302ca >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>=20 >>=20 >> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon >> wrote: >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Bob >> On Dec 13, 2023, at 2:38 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain >> wrote: >>=20 >> I would love for Nathan to be here with us, and >> comment on that :-) so I will add NN list as well. >>=20 >>=20 >> All the best, >>=20 >> Frank >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>=20 >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >> Skype: casioa5302ca >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>=20 >>=20 >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy >> wrote: >>=20 >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>=20 >> *From:*Starlink >> [mailto:starlink-bounces@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=E2=80=99s RDOF Application >>=20 >> =E2=80=9C*Elon Musk*=E2=80=99s Starlink was not = the only major >> company to inflate its capabilities >> = in >> RDOF bids. Nearly 100 bidders have defaulted since >> the auction, leaving in limbo an estimated $2.8 >> billion >> = of >> the $9.2 billion originally awarded. >>=20 >> The FCCupheld another denial >> = on >> Monday in the case of LTD Broadband, which >> appealed the commission=E2=80=99s 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. >>=20 >> The commission=E2=80=99s two Republicans dissented = to >> Starlink=E2=80=99s denial, claiming they saw a = path for >> the company to improve its speeds before the first >> deployment deadline in 2025.=E2=80=9D >>=20 >> */[RR] The reason two lawyers =E2=80=9Csaw a = path=E2=80=9D 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 =E2=80=A6 = period! /**/JJ/* >>=20 >> = https://broadbandbreakfast.com/2023/12/fcc-upholds-denial-of-starlinks-rdo= f-application/ >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> All the best, >>=20 >> Frank >> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik >>=20 >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik >> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 >> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 >> Skype: casioa5302ca >> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com >>=20 >> = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>=20 >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> Nathan Simington >> cell: 305-793-6899 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >=20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > (this 'tangled wires' is not particular to just fiber, it can be = witnessed in other cables for public use;) >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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, = that is completely unrealistic to match from space. If the problem is = wiring and cable organisation, that seems considerably easier and = economic to fix than pushing all traffic via satellites. 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. Regards Sebastian >=20 > Alex >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink