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 >>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> in >>>>>> RDOF bids. Nearly 100 bidders have defaulted since the auction, leaving in >>>>>> limbo an estimated $2.8 billion >>>>>> of >>>>>> the $9.2 billion originally awarded. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The FCC upheld another denial >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >