[Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink’s RDOF Application

[Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink’s RDOF Application

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1369 bytes --]

“*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 FCC upheld 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.”

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@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4891 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2511 bytes --]

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@gmail.com


On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10712 bytes --]

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

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3468 bytes --]

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, 2:38 PM, at 2:38 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@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@gmail.com
>
>
>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12008 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4337 bytes --]

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@gmail.com


On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14241 bytes --]

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

[David Bray, PhD]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6250 bytes --]

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@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@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16260 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6895 bytes --]

If you have time now by any chance, Brendan Carr is speaking on Spaces, on
Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1mnxepDgvLvJX


All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 6:49 PM, David Bray, PhD <david.a.bray@gmail.com>
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@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@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>
>
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18386 bytes --]

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

[Nathan Simington]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10347 bytes --]

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@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@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@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>


-- 
Nathan Simington
cell: 305-793-6899

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21467 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11255 bytes --]

Thanks, Nathan.

I’m adding Brendan’s dissent as well:
https://x.com/brendancarrfcc/status/1734696706795778126

All the best,

Frank
Frantisek (Frank) Borsik

https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
Skype: casioa5302ca
frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 7:51 PM, Nathan Simington via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> 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@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@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@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy <dickroy3777@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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’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 FCC upheld 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@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>
>
> --
> Nathan Simington
> cell: 305-793-6899
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 23051 bytes --]

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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@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@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@gmail.com
>
>
>         On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon
>         <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>
>
>                 On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy
>                 <dickroy3777@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                     *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’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@gmail.com
>
>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Nnagain mailing list
>                 Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>                 https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Nnagain mailing list
>         Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>         https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Nnagain mailing list
>     Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nathan Simington
> cell: 305-793-6899
>
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@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.

Alex

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:07:10PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
> 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

You do not need multiple fibers to transfer more than 1gbit/s - the benefit
is "multiple services or multiple providers could use those extra fibers"
(or "have a backup in case one is damanged")

Fiber7.ch delivers 25 Gbit/s to the home in switzerland, on a single fiber :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 15/12/2023 à 13:37, Gert Doering a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:07:10PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:
>> 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
> You do not need multiple fibers to transfer more than 1gbit/s - the benefit
> is "multiple services or multiple providers could use those extra fibers"
> (or "have a backup in case one is damanged")
>
> Fiber7.ch delivers 25 Gbit/s to the home in switzerland, on a single fiber :-)

It is worth noting indeed.

So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.  I 
think it is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, 
drones etc) are used, and larger band widths.

Alex

>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster

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

[Gert Doering]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.  I think it
> is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones etc)
> are used, and larger band widths.

As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to
have it).

gert
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3416 bytes --]

>
> 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 -
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.

The same is true for missing/loosing support for FWA in the grand/funding
schemes:  all the arguments thrown around by fiber cheerleaders are based
on bandwidth (at best) or "speed" (in most cases) or some theorethical
future-proofness (I mean, we don't know what will happen in next hour,
little less we know what will happen in next 10 years).

HOWEVER, the real issue at hand is either absolutely missing connectivity
in many places. Literally ANY service (even 3/1 Mbps) will be a welcome
improvement on the current state of thing, let alone Starlink with all its
pros and cons.

Total reliance on fiber will lead mostly to overbuilding at locations with
some service, not to the overall improvements everywhere. Typical "good
intentions, bad consequences" type of situations.

Also, when we want to close the digital divide aka "get internet
connectivity everywhere" - it means to do it ASAP, even thought it would
not mean a "state of the art" type of the internet of some blessed hype
place on the West or East coast, with so many competing ISPs.

Last but not least, we should care also about the price of closing that
digital divide. Do we need to have "big fat pipes" just because we as a
industry were building and optimising everything within the Internet
infrastructure for bandwidth, we taught our customers that "faster speed
package" is the solution to all their problems and so on? It's about time
to fix that absolute BS narrative we have felt for over time.

This was the step in the right direction and let's hope that FCC (and
others) will used it wisely:
https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc


All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44 PM Gert Doering via Starlink <
starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> > So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.  I
> think it
> > is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones etc)
> > are used, and larger band widths.
>
> As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
> here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to
> have it).
>
> gert
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael
> Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5654 bytes --]

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

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:46:06PM +0100, Frantisek Borsik via Starlink wrote:
> The same is true for missing/loosing support for FWA in the grand/funding
> schemes:  all the arguments thrown around by fiber cheerleaders are based
> on bandwidth (at best) or "speed" (in most cases) or some theorethical
> future-proofness (I mean, we don't know what will happen in next hour,
> little less we know what will happen in next 10 years).

One important argument comparing fiber to DSL is power usage per port.

(I have no numbers for fiber vs. wireless ISP so I can't comment on that)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

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).


> 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. 


> The same is true for missing/loosing support for FWA in the grand/funding schemes:  all the arguments thrown around by fiber cheerleaders are based on bandwidth (at best) or "speed" (in most cases) or some theorethical future-proofness (I mean, we don't know what will happen in next hour, little less we know what will happen in next 10 years). 

	I am mo cheerleader (built like a ton, nobody would like to see me with pompoms), yet I consider a (reasonably) universal fiber network exactly the right political goal. Yet, I accept that reaching that goal will not be instantaneous, so we should find a way of making those currently effectively disconnected participate more in the digital society even before the fiber truck reach their homes...


> HOWEVER, the real issue at hand is either absolutely missing connectivity in many places. Literally ANY service (even 3/1 Mbps) will be a welcome improvement on the current state of thing, let alone Starlink with all its pros and cons. 

	Yes I tend to agree, at least from the far away this looks like a reasonable way to bridge the period until a better network reaches those places.


> 
> Total reliance on fiber will lead mostly to overbuilding at locations with some service, not to the overall improvements everywhere. Typical "good intentions, bad consequences" type of situations. 

	No, that would just be a case of bad regulation, if the goal is an universal FTTH network, neither planning or implementing that is "rocket science" unless people "cheat".


> Also, when we want to close the digital divide aka "get internet connectivity everywhere" - it means to do it ASAP, even thought it would not mean a "state of the art" type of the internet of some blessed hype place on the West or East coast, with so many competing ISPs. 

	Yes, that would appear so. However the FCC process has to be reasonably fair to all, and given the redactions in the official I can not realistically tell whether the FCC is unreasonably hard here (and if so why) or whether starlink was trying to under-deliver on the requirements. Given that I will likely never get the un-redacted information and am living far away from where the FCC has anything to say, I can accept that ambiguity quite easily.


> Last but not least, we should care also about the price of closing that digital divide. Do we need to have "big fat pipes" just because we as a industry were building and optimising everything within the Internet infrastructure for bandwidth, we taught our customers that "faster speed package" is the solution to all their problems and so on? It's about time to fix that absolute BS narrative we have felt for over time. 

	Yes, we need a universal FTTH network.. let's build this now for the next 100 years, instead of keeping tinkering with small updates here and there... Light in fiber has multiple desirable advantages, a higher theoretical (and practical) capacity ceiling is only one of those (although the one that makes an FTTH network conceptually more future proof). This is IMHO fact, not BS.
	Other advantages of fiber are e.g. massively higher robustness against RF-interference (compared to DSL, DOCSIS, and wireless access techniques). This has an immediate latency consequence. If we look at DSL we see essentially a 4 KHz clock that hence has a potential access latency floor on the order of of ~250µs (while e.g. GPON uses 125s chunks, but with dynamic bandwidth allocation and hence request/grant traffic it is not faster than DSL) both FTTH and DSL have signal propagation speeds on the order of 2/3 the speed of light in vacuum. 
	Most DSL users however see access latencies in the dozens of milliseconds simple because their links are configured to use deep interleaving to make bit-error-rates acceptable in the light of RF noise; compare that to fiber where access delay will be in the low single digit milliseconds for PON or even lower for AON access. 
	Also the length between active components with fiber can be in the dozens of miles without having to fall back to capacities in the Kbps range as DSL, fiber is hence far better suited for wiring up the rural underserved areas... (and let's be clear, the cost argument for deploying fiber to these places today would have applied to all other infrastructure in the past, like power, water, roads, telephony, and yet these typically have been deployed).


Regards
	Sebastian



> This was the step in the right direction and let's hope that FCC (and others) will used it wisely: https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc
> 
> 
> All the best,
> 
> Frank
> 
> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
> 
>  
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
> 
> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 
> 
> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
> 
> Skype: casioa5302ca
> 
> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:44 PM Gert Doering via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> > So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.  I think it
> > is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones etc)
> > are used, and larger band widths.
> 
> As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
> here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to
> have it).
> 
> gert
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
> 
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

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

[David Lang]

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

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

[rjmcmahon]

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

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5340 bytes --]

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
>

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

[rjmcmahon]

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
>> 

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6861 bytes --]

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
>>> 
>

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

[David Bray, PhD]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8797 bytes --]

There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long as
it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv founder
Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
ground-based connections too.

That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental health
services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless of
LEO or not. The concern is two fold:

* video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
patient developing a relationship with a health provider

* 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually a
continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by the
body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t know
if they’re coming to attack us or not.

So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
nnagain@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
> >>>
> >_______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11853 bytes --]

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9099 bytes --]

I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was on the 
topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming that we 
needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of telehealth 
as well.

I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are compared to 
in-person meetings.

David Lang

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:

> There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long as
> it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv founder
> Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
> ground-based connections too.
>
> That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental health
> services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless of
> LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
>
> * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
> patient developing a relationship with a health provider
>
> * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
> might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
> showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually a
> continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by the
> body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
> foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t know
> if they’re coming to attack us or not.
>
> So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
> were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
> nnagain@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
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>

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

[David Bray, PhD]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10218 bytes --]

This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt:  >>why do you
think telehealth won't work over LEO services?

As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized for
the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday.

Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead!


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:

> I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was
> on the
> topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming
> that we
> needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of
> telehealth
> as well.
>
> I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are
> compared to
> in-person meetings.
>
> David Lang
>
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:
>
> > There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long
> as
> > it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv
> founder
> > Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
> > ground-based connections too.
> >
> > That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental
> health
> > services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless
> of
> > LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
> >
> > * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
> > patient developing a relationship with a health provider
> >
> > * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
> > might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
> > showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually
> a
> > continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by
> the
> > body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
> > foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t
> know
> > if they’re coming to attack us or not.
> >
> > So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
> > were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
> > nnagain@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
> >>>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >> Nnagain mailing list
> >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
> >>
> >

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14266 bytes --]

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

[Kenline, Doug]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10691 bytes --]

I’m a Return-to-Office worker and we come in to the office to do our in-person meetings on Zoom.

The conference rooms are only used for storage now.

Doug



From: Nnagain <nnagain-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2023 5:13 PM
To: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
Cc: David Bray, PhD <david.a.bray@gmail.com>; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net; Network Neutrality is back! Let´s make the technical aspects heard this time! <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
Subject: Re: [NNagain] [Starlink] FCC Upholds Denial of Starlink's RDOF Application


CAUTION: This email originated from an external sender! Do not click the links, open attachments or reply, unless you recognize/trust the sender's email address and know the content is safe!


This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt:  >>why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?

As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized for the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday.

Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead!


On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm<mailto:david@lang.hm>> wrote:
I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was on the
topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming that we
needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of telehealth
as well.

I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are compared to
in-person meetings.

David Lang

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:

> There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long as
> it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv founder
> Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
> ground-based connections too.
>
> That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental health
> services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless of
> LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
>
> * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
> patient developing a relationship with a health provider
>
> * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
> might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
> showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually a
> continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by the
> body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
> foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t know
> if they’re coming to attack us or not.
>
> So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
> were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:nnagain@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<mailto: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<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net<mailto:Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net>
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18336 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 2:13 PM David Bray, PhD via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt:  >>why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?
>
> As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized for the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday.
>
> Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead!

Sometimes the best way to value something is to get away from it for a
while. I recommend everybody log off... maybe take a walk
in the park, see some friends, make some music, visit a library, play
golf, go fishing, spend time with your loved ones, fire up a card
game...

stop with the technology for a while and re-engage your other senses.

The internet will still be here when you get back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMoPR2IA2Uk

>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>>
>> I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the discussion was on the
>> topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to claiming that we
>> needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because of telehealth
>> as well.
>>
>> I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are compared to
>> in-person meetings.
>>
>> David Lang
>>
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:
>>
>> > There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO as long as
>> > it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious listserv founder
>> > Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
>> > ground-based connections too.
>> >
>> > That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether mental health
>> > services can be delivered effectively over video in general - regardless of
>> > LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
>> >
>> > * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
>> > patient developing a relationship with a health provider
>> >
>> > * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative ideation. One
>> > might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the evidence
>> > showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s actually a
>> > continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls prompted by the
>> > body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are friend or
>> > foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we don’t know
>> > if they’re coming to attack us or not.
>> >
>> > So future generations may look back and decide that with video calls we
>> > were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological processes?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
>> > nnagain@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
>> >>>>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> Nnagain mailing list
>> >> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>> >>
>> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain



-- 
:( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Sorry, I do not want to add to any vitriol on this topic.  But there is 
a technical aspect that might help to clarify some aspects.

Le 15/12/2023 à 23:13, David Bray, PhD via Starlink a écrit :
> This GPT(human)bot was responding to the engineered prompt:  >>why do 
> you think telehealth won't work over LEO services?
>
> As it's Friday, this GPT(human)bot bandwidth has been fully utilized 
> for the week. Our servers will be back-on line come Monday.
>
> Wishing everyone (human or machine) a wonderful weekend ahead!

What do you mean by 'GPT(human)bot'?

I am intrigued by many posts on many email lists.  Some of them appear 
to me they might be generated by GPT-like text generators.

I asked a few persons around how could one identify GPT-generated text?  
(for example, in the era prior to GPT it was possible to check whether a 
text was copy-pasted from elsewhere by simply googling it); I have not 
received any answer until now, but I still search for such tool.   A 
sort of super-gpt that would identify the gpt, or a super-intelligence 
to tell the artificial from natural.

On another hand, google (again it!) tells that 'GPTZero' might help 
identifying whether or not a given text is generated by AI-like tools.  
This GPTZero tells that some paragraphs from this email thread might 
(51%) be AI generated, whereas others 0% (not likely at all).

That was my clarification.

Alex

>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 5:10 PM David Lang <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>
>     I don't disagree with anything that you say below, but the
>     discussion was on the
>     topic of starlink vs fiber, with the person I was responding to
>     claiming that we
>     needed to have women in charge of the Internet companies because
>     of telehealth
>     as well.
>
>     I'm a remote worker and VERY aware of how limiting video calls are
>     compared to
>     in-person meetings.
>
>     David Lang
>
>     On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, David Bray, PhD wrote:
>
>     > There’s good evidence that physical health can be done over LEO
>     as long as
>     > it isn’t low latency dependent. Of course our illustrious
>     listserv founder
>     > Dave Taht will be quick to point out high latency is also found via
>     > ground-based connections too.
>     >
>     > That said, there is still a lot of research debate on whether
>     mental health
>     > services can be delivered effectively over video in general -
>     regardless of
>     > LEO or not. The concern is two fold:
>     >
>     > * video is suboptimal to detect tiny tells and other signatures of a
>     > patient developing a relationship with a health provider
>     >
>     > * 2D video actually is worse for brainstorming and creative
>     ideation. One
>     > might say so what relative to delivering healthcare, except the
>     evidence
>     > showing that video is worse for brainstorming indicates there’s
>     actually a
>     > continual subconscious confusion when folks do video calls
>     prompted by the
>     > body trying to discern if the one or more disembodied heads are
>     friend or
>     > foe. Since we cannot see a person’s hands and body movements we
>     don’t know
>     > if they’re coming to attack us or not.
>     >
>     > So future generations may look back and decide that with video
>     calls we
>     > were literally messing with our brains’ own natural biological
>     processes?
>     >
>     >
>     > On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 16:42 David Lang via Nnagain <
>     > nnagain@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
>     >>>>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >> 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

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

[rjmcmahon]

I surveyed some female telehealth providers. There are a lot of 
subtleties required to make telehealth work well for the providers. 
Their knowledge level is quite fascinating.

I don't see their voices here on these boards either. In education, the 
absence of something being taught is called the null curriculum. This 
group has a huge null curriculum w/respect to female voices - though 
that's my perspective.

https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/reimagining-the-null-curriculum

Bob
> 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
>>>> 
>> 

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7989 bytes --]

what does this have to do with starlink vs FTTH?

I don't know or care the sex of the other people in this discussion, I could 
make guesses based on the listed names for some, but by no means all, but why 
would I?

This discussion is open to anyone.

David Lang

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote:

> I surveyed some female telehealth providers. There are a lot of subtleties 
> required to make telehealth work well for the providers. Their knowledge 
> level is quite fascinating.
>
> I don't see their voices here on these boards either. In education, the 
> absence of something being taught is called the null curriculum. This group 
> has a huge null curriculum w/respect to female voices - though that's my 
> perspective.
>
> https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/reimagining-the-null-curriculum
>
> Bob
>> 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
>>>>> 
>>> 
>

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

[Dave Taht]

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



-- 
:( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8476 bytes --]

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
>
>
>
>

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

[rjmcmahon]

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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

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

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11176 bytes --]


And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they have to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And I was amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? They're all women.

People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine. RBG

Bob

On Dec 16, 2023, 9:30 AM, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12478 bytes --]

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

[Frantisek Borsik]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13631 bytes --]

When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still
believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have less
bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone knows
that there is still SO much work in front of us.

*trying to bring this thread back on track :-)

So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k locations
will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular
amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC will
decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink, in
this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you
will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing it? Or
anyone with DOCSIS? No way.

This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those
people living at these locations in question are the ones that will loose
the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental gymnastics
you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No internet?
Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I, those
people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not
give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or
whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The only
way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink.

All the best,

Frank

Frantisek (Frank) Borsik



https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik

Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714

iMessage, mobile: +420775230885

Skype: casioa5302ca

frantisek.borsik@gmail.com


On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain <
nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

>
> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they have
> to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And I was
> amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing
> these tough types? They're all women.
>
> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough?
> When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there
> are nine. RBG
>
> Bob
> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <
> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17238 bytes --]

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

[Robert McMahon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14654 bytes --]

Elon Musk can afford to take starlink to markey without the government subsidies. It's past time to stop subsidizing the richest person on the planet.

⁣Bob

On Dec 16, 2023, 1:44 PM, at 1:44 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still
>believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have
>less
>bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone
>knows
>that there is still SO much work in front of us.
>
>*trying to bring this thread back on track :-)
>
>So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k
>locations
>will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular
>amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC
>will
>decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink,
>in
>this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you
>will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing
>it? Or
>anyone with DOCSIS? No way.
>
>This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those
>people living at these locations in question are the ones that will
>loose
>the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental
>gymnastics
>you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No
>internet?
>Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I,
>those
>people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not
>give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or
>whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The
>only
>way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink.
>
>All the best,
>
>Frank
>
>Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>
>
>
>https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>
>Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>
>iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>
>Skype: casioa5302ca
>
>frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>
>
>On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain <
>nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they
>have
>> to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And
>I was
>> amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are
>representing
>> these tough types? They're all women.
>>
>> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be
>enough?
>> When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when
>there
>> are nine. RBG
>>
>> Bob
>> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Nnagain mailing list
>Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 22414 bytes --]

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

[Dave Taht]

I tried gently to shut down the vitriol on this thread yesterday. In
general I prefer we talk about ideas, and not people.

Ideally I would like this to be a place where people can
constructively disagree, and I have encouraged since the start to
outreach to people (male or female) that might be interested in
discussing technical aspects of network neutrality. Fights over who
gets funded for what are barely within scope, and I am hesitant to
state my opinions for fear of fanning flames further.

I think Starlink is an excellent service, and is doing a great job of
covering the more rural parts of America and the world, and can
continue to do so, without subsidy, A subsidy of some kind might lead
to lower prices, more launches, or more ground stations, or investment
into better software. (it is unclear what they RDOF funds were for? I
think originally the costs were priced to reduce the cost of the
terminal itself for a shorter ROI)

It is unlikely 1B would end up being tossed into a cash fire and
burned for merriment. The fact that Starlink can deploy rapidly,
anywhere, without planning, or digging up roads is a huge boon. The
value for emergency services alone is nearly incalculable. The
difficulties with comparing it to a conventional networking service
are legion, particularly given the flawed speedtest based regimes -
which have very little bearing on the things users actually use the
internet for in the first place. The MTTR and MTBF of starlink are
really low (except in the case of a kessler event!) compared to any
terrestrial service. Having to not compete based on arbitrary rules
laid down by the subsiders but merely on genuine quality of experience
metrics would be kind of freeing.

The high cost of the monthly service is, in  my mind, really trivial
compared to the opex of running a fiber or wireless network out to the
boonies. I have no idea to what extent RDOF applications have thought
through the long term costs of over-extended networks or the degree to
which urban is expected to subsidize rural?

I have yet to see anyone talking about rural opex throughout most of
the BEAD debate in the first place, and perhaps if rational estimates
of those appeared debates would be more fruitful.

I think it is a political mistake to make it any harder for rural
america to get better internet, something that rural folk are already
quite aware of after years of broken promises for better internet. But
again, starlink can be had at best buy and is in a position to serve
many millions more people far faster than fiber be laid.

I guess there are multiple other comments I could try to respond to but...




On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 2:29 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
> Elon Musk can afford to take starlink to markey without the government subsidies. It's past time to stop subsidizing the richest person on the planet.
>
> Bob
> On Dec 16, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>> When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have less bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone knows that there is still SO much work in front of us.
>>
>> *trying to bring this thread back on track :-)
>>
>> So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k locations will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC will decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink, in this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing it? Or anyone with DOCSIS? No way.
>>
>> This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those people living at these locations in question are the ones that will loose the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental gymnastics you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No internet? Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I, those people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The only way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they have to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And I was amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? They're all women.
>>>
>>> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine. RBG
>>>
>>> Bob
>>> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nnagain mailing list
> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain



-- 
:( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

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

[J Pan]

going back to starlink vs ftth for rdof, 100/20mbps down/uplink
throughput is not the barrier, but stable latency and jitter are still
challenging. avoid very long landing ground stations to home point of
presence tunnel and better inter satellite routing are the key. of
course, from fcc's view, invest something buried underground might be
safer than disposable satellites ;-)
--
J Pan, UVic CSc, ECS566, 250-472-5796 (NO VM), Pan@UVic.CA, Web.UVic.CA/~pan

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

[David Lang]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 15269 bytes --]

The people getting the subsidies would be the subscribers. They wouldn't be 
paying for rocket launches direction, but for lower subscription prices in some 
areas. (and indirectly paying for launches)

Note that Elon commented on this that it was the competition, not SpaceX that 
lobbied for these subsidies to exist in the first place, but once they started 
losing out on them, they are trying to change the rules.

Dvaid Lang

On Sat, 16 Dec 2023, Robert McMahon via Nnagain wrote:

> Elon Musk can afford to take starlink to markey without the government subsidies. It's past time to stop subsidizing the richest person on the planet.
>
> ⁣Bob
>
> On Dec 16, 2023, 1:44 PM, at 1:44 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>> When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still
>> believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have
>> less
>> bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone
>> knows
>> that there is still SO much work in front of us.
>>
>> *trying to bring this thread back on track :-)
>>
>> So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k
>> locations
>> will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular
>> amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC
>> will
>> decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink,
>> in
>> this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you
>> will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing
>> it? Or
>> anyone with DOCSIS? No way.
>>
>> This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those
>> people living at these locations in question are the ones that will
>> loose
>> the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental
>> gymnastics
>> you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No
>> internet?
>> Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I,
>> those
>> people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not
>> give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or
>> whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The
>> only
>> way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> Frantisek (Frank) Borsik
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik
>>
>> Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714
>>
>> iMessage, mobile: +420775230885
>>
>> Skype: casioa5302ca
>>
>> frantisek.borsik@gmail.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain <
>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they
>> have
>>> to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And
>> I was
>>> amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are
>> representing
>>> these tough types? They're all women.
>>>
>>> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be
>> enough?
>>> When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when
>> there
>>> are nine. RBG
>>>
>>> Bob
>>> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain <
>>> nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Nnagain mailing list
>>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Nnagain mailing list
>> Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>

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

[Livingood, Jason]

On 12/15/23, 07:44, "Starlink on behalf of Gert Doering via Starlink" wrote:

> As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
here (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to
have it).

Agree 100%. At the recent IETF meeting, we had over 1,000 devices active at peak hours and used below 1 Gbps. The notion that a home user needs 25G or more these days is ridiculous. ;-)

Jason

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 15/12/2023 à 16:46, Livingood, Jason a écrit :
[...]
> The notion that a home user needs 25G or more these days is ridiculous. ;-)
:-) yes and no.
If one had a 25 gbit/s line arriving at home one might want to try 
multiple TV 3D 8K viewers and recordings, while ongoing DSD4096 5.1 
audio streamings (even 11.1).
Besides, 25gbit/s might feature such a low latency that many existing 
apps (telemedecine including) might work much better.
Alex

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Alexandre,

On 17 December 2023 18:32:39 CET, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:
>
>Le 15/12/2023 à 16:46, Livingood, Jason a écrit :
>[...]
>> The notion that a home user needs 25G or more these days is ridiculous. ;-)
>:-) yes and no.
>If one had a 25 gbit/s line arriving at home one might want to try multiple TV 3D 8K viewers 

        [SM] To be useful this arguably requires multiple pairs of eyeballs though and the respektive sreens/vr goggles. And the stomach to actually tolerate 3D...

and recordings, while ongoing DSD4096 5.1 audio streamings (even 11.1).
>Besides, 25gbit/s might feature such a low latency 

        [SM] Serialisation delay, the one delay that mostly scales inversely to access rate tends to be in the noise well below 25Gbps. See e.g. here https://wiki.geant.org/display/public/EK/SerializationDelay serialisation delay of a single 1500 Byte packet at 1 Gbps sits at 12 μs that is a queue of ~80 of these has an aggregate serialization delay of ~1ms. I think it is safe to say that well below 25Gbps serialization delay stops becoming dominant... 

that many existing apps (telemedecine including) might work much better.

        [SM] I severely daubt that telemedicine is going to notice much difference once we are above the required bitrate for the video codec :)
Side note: I might be an unfrozen/rethawed caveman, but I consider telemedicine not a 'killer' app (sorry, bad terminology) for large capacity access links.

Regards
        Sebastian

>Alex
>_______________________________________________
>Starlink mailing list
>Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

Le 15/12/2023 à 13:44, Gert Doering a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 01:43:25PM +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> So, a requirement to a competitive satcom would be like 25 Gbit/s.  I think it
>> is not impossible to make, if many intermediate layers (HAPS, drones etc)
>> are used, and larger band widths.
> As was noted upthread, raw bandwith is not the only relevant criteria
> here

I agree.

But, raw bandwidth increase often (always?) comes with latency 
decrease.  It shouldnt be neglected.

>   (and nobody really *needs* 25 Gbit/s at home, though I'd *love* to
> have it).

Sure, I agree.

To that, I'd say this:

"640kbyte RAM is enough for all purposes", right?

finger + bandwidth = twitter

iridium + bandwidth = starlink

ATMachine + bandwidth = paypal

It appears hard to reduce in importance.

And I do appreciate and use many low bandwidth high-latency links regularly.

And I do agree that, especially in countries with many 
sparsely-populated areas, the starlink access appears to be a great 
tool, which should be considered importantly.

Alex

>
> gert

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Alexandre,


> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:07, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink <starlink@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@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@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@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>>        On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon
>>        <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>> 
>> 
>>                On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy
>>                <dickroy3777@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>                    *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’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@gmail.com
>> 
>>                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>>                Nnagain mailing list
>>                Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>                https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>> 
>>        _______________________________________________
>>        Nnagain mailing list
>>        Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>        https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>> 
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    Nnagain mailing list
>>    Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>    https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Nathan Simington
>> cell: 305-793-6899
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Starlink mailing list
>> Starlink@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, 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


> 
> Alex
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Alexandre Petrescu]

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@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@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@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@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>         On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon
>>>         <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>>                 On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy
>>>                 <dickroy3777@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>                     *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’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@gmail.com
>>>
>>>                 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>                 Nnagain mailing list
>>>                 Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>                 https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         Nnagain mailing list
>>>         Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>         https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Nnagain mailing list
>>>     Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>     https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Nathan Simington
>>> cell: 305-793-6899
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@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@lists.bufferbloat.net
>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

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

[Sebastian Moeller]

Hi Alexandre,


> On Dec 16, 2023, at 09:09, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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@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@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@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@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 3:46 AM, Robert McMahon
>>>>        <rjmcmahon@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@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@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>                On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 11:21 PM, Richard Roy
>>>>                <dickroy3777@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>                    *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’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@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>>                ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>                Nnagain mailing list
>>>>                Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>                https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>> 
>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>        Nnagain mailing list
>>>>        Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>        https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>> 
>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>    Nnagain mailing list
>>>>    Nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>>>    https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Nathan Simington
>>>> cell: 305-793-6899
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Starlink mailing list
>>>> Starlink@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'?

	[SM] Yes, with strand I wanted to tackle the same issue, that fiber cables typically contain more separate wave-guiding fibers, but comparing multiple fibers with a single satellite would have seemed obviously unhelpful.


> I suspect that it is that hair-like fiber that can carry 1gbit/s, because that's what I get at home.

	[SM] Multiple hundred Gbps actually... most european fiber ISPs seem to use passive optical networks (where multiple end users share the same fiber trunk from an optical splitter to the central office, there is an individual fiber fr each enduser conedcted to the splitter, but the traffic all needs to share the "trunk" fiber [I am sure this is not the correct nomenclature I am using, but I hope you understand]). These trunk fibers have capacities ranging from 2.5/1.25 Gbps (Down/Up) for GPON, over 10/10 Gbps for XGSPON (actually more like 8.5/8.5 when FEC is used), up rto 25/25 with 25GSPON or (still work in progress) 50/25 with 50GPON... Just as the downstream from a satelite is shared between starlink users in the same cell, so is the aggregate capacity in PONs.


> 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,

	[SM] Yes, that depends a bit on the exact fiber specifications, but I think you can buy optical tramsceuvers for single fibers (aka hairs) that allow 800 Gbps (at least that is what a quick look at fs.com revealed).


> and Gert said Fiber7.ch delivers 25 gbit/s;

	[SM] In Switzerland they opted for an active optical network (AON) and Init7 gets hence a darf fiber per customer and can light this up any way they want. They figured out that offering 25 instead of 10 is viable for them, so they went and did that. (I do note though that Init7 is not primarily and end user ISP, and offering really fast symmetric end-user links might positively affect their traffic mix, potentially opening up more opportunities for cheaper peerings due to more equal ingress/egress ratio, but that is pure speculation).


> a little bit like on copper lines they went from 2.4kbit/s up to 20mbit/s).  

	[SM] I think the limit on telephony copper is around 200-300 Mbps (and that is an economic limit, there are techniques for short reached like G.fast that reach up to 1000 Mbps that are just not deployable en masse due ot cable length being too long).


> Or maybe the fiber hundreds of gbit/s can be obtained from multiple such hairs, or maybe even multiple 5mm black cables.

	[SM] Yes, you can always add more waveguides to increase the throughput linearly, but for end-user links that is rather unlikely, there typically will be a fixed number of fibers...


> 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.

	[SM] The promise of hollow fibers is that they allow faster signal propagation than the typical 2/3 of the speed of light inside glass fibers. I am not sure whether these are actually viable for PONs and even if, if they make much sense, after all the largest access delay in PONs comes from the typical request grant cycle and not from signal propagation/serialisation delay.


> 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).

	[SM] I think such numbers are mostly relevant for backbone networks and especially sub-sea cables, for home links I do not expect these to show up in the 2030s ;)


>>  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.

	[SM] I see this only happen if the fiber side stops any further development while the satellite side continues, and even then... for single links free space laser lins between base statin and satelliltes might approach fiber like speeds, but that does not sound like a desirable outcome...


> 
>>  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.

	[SM] Not easier to fix than setting up a LEO space program where satellites have to be replaces continuously? I am pretty sure this is not a matter of capabilities and more of priorities ;)


>  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.

	[SM] I am less optimistic here... it seems rather simple to hand over all access fibers to a single entity and have these to one thing and do it well, deploy and maintain fibers in the access network, that should solve the disconnect problem relatively efficiently. And I am sure the french state would have zero problems managing something like that.


> 
>>  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.

	[SM] Fair enough, let's see how things develop, after all users typically are fine with "enough" capacity, and maybe LEO will end up delivering exactly that enough capacity so people stop caring. ATM we lack "killer-application" for high capacity links already (that is desirable applications that strictly require high capacity links to work at all), no wonder even the access network industry started looking at latency as the next thing to address that might be valuable enough for users to invest into. (Wich also happens to be where LEO clearly beats GEO, delivering base latencies that make special case PePs avoidable).

Regards
	Sebastian


> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 	Sebastian
>> 
>> 
>>> Alex
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Starlink mailing list
>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink

[Starlink] other fcc services at sea

[Dave Taht]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:51 AM Nathan Simington via Nnagain
<nnagain@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

> 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.

I tend to think that a modern phone is enough for most people. It
would be nice if buying more bandwidth on demand was easier.

/me hides

>And, unlike StarLink, we still won't have connected Dave's boat :-)

A couple notes. I enjoy being colorful but boat life is not for
everyone, and in particular I am finding coping with small finicky
things increasingly difficult as I get older. My boat has been for
sale for a while. I would, absolutely, get another in a warmer,
cheaper location, smaller, and wider, with a bit more automation and a
motor easier to work on, perhaps electric! The new regen electric
motors are quite the thing and a heck of an improvement over finicky
diesels. You only need enough stored power to get you a few hundred
feet if the winds are willing and you do not need to get anywhere
fast. Two $800 lithium batteries can get a 35 foot boat like mine
about 20 miles. My plan a few years back was to essentially commute
between SF and Half Moon Bay with enough solar and battery on board to
run a phone and laptop.

Starlink is a really bad choice for most small boating applications.
The power requirements (50+ watts) dwarf that of all the other gear on
the boat, combined, and the need for high speed internet at sea rather
limited for a sailboat. Many marinas, including this one, provide free
WiFi, and  there is actually comcast out to any boat that wants it,
although it doesn't work very well. Richer marinas than mine actually
have FTTB (fiber to the boat). Starlink is a pretty good choice at
more remote marinas than mine to service the whole marina and
increasingly indispensable for bigger boats on longer trips, but for
boating recreation I think most users prefer to be offline and at
most, stream music.  I have an enormous flac collection and a kindle,
and otherwise do not much want from the internet at sea anything more
than weather,  email and the occasional call.

I got a starlink because my godson (and first mate) was annoyed about
his, and planning a trip where it might have been nice to have it
thoroughly de-bufferbloated. Fun story here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9gLo6Xrwgw

Otherwise I would just have stuck with a lte/wifi box up on the mast.
It has been fun watching the service evolve, but it is really small
potatoes cmpared to trying to improve 5g and wifi as I otherwise do.

Far more amazing to me, is watching VHF radio get so rapidly displaced
by coastal cellular services over the last decade. You can get
astoundingly good bandwidth on a phone 5+ miles out at sea along much
of the California coastline, at a cost of 1Watt charged up at shore or
a half hours charging off of the motor. Yo can do even better than
that with a box up the mast. While some VHF is still used if you know
someone else is out there, you tend to try and call them, first. There
was a study recently about how at sea cellular access transformed the
fishing market for a small country.

There are many other simple, robust services "out there" that few know
about, "AIS" for example, identifies boats to each other, and how the
EPIRB rescue system works is pretty amazing. How these work are
covered by succinct and adequate FCC regulations. Recent example:

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-372824A1.pdf

Busy ports can still get pretty hairy but it is nothing like air
traffic control, and it is really rare that any boat ends up as a
supertanker hood ornament.