From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x530.google.com (mail-ed1-x530.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::530]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B8973B29E for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 13:34:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x530.google.com with SMTP id m15so10710377edb.13 for ; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=perens.com; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=1lmbMB/f6u0zg+gF0CeNToN4rg7NPBNgUZ/AJUXoWyc=; b=JIbAAGOxpffUQfonjQMCgpzmtsvT63dRBW0GTn4eXYd8yaKEXbMtP16JuICi6B1/8L mnssA3lpKZH/+2p9wr2nIBqJy4QYCA+cVxhVnar6DJwnL4ZvNZFnkOzfRx/1o30kO72g Jd6j7U3LS1vi/anTVMNLS/GRWI1NlxrWdCsNk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=1lmbMB/f6u0zg+gF0CeNToN4rg7NPBNgUZ/AJUXoWyc=; b=Y39KQiNTtTmMwmeEnnRJoz8gKJPrFf6gFJO2lJex473jSIL7F98Jb9BypQxkzySf5l vBpCrbmiSw4e0xPx90ynVM8rBaIpvPK6qtEv2jhIvd6DaeJ3sHnPXzP1OOEvbH6R+8lD pXGc6jAQLEDhytXWaI/BJ85L9MUe5Z93NR3DdEKrf6JaYCmngIZBzOR1gbgKNKKqHrKZ fUx1aPTAT64uKhFHav624tWaD2abk0dS0hVRKYe+1G1D0AF+YtFY99Hbp7Out3nhQ7iY XcYRkS2EEU6AeoB6Xsh9xzJNHDl3XFF/+ZlHpGHua0u074qL+0dVvH44H3/Kmbl4bbT+ qNsg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1nFYitNUhJUxvZ9JnzIqw/9RodGg5zWWlgloPAUApx2Sh/o37H HNHmeF/90twVlvqcIzxbwhe5Rp+m9K7J+bAT6nFzEqkYgoIG2Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4HR3FP69jYaKpoc0YkJup8dgbMcBb7TOyDmAkmFdGvw7rVJ/Pwxo4FnFcTRnryL96fFW6drX50ct2dicq/V2c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:4446:b0:457:eebd:fe52 with SMTP id o6-20020a056402444600b00457eebdfe52mr3129269edb.234.1665855246725; Sat, 15 Oct 2022 10:34:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1665778452.8193981@apps.rackspace.com> In-Reply-To: <1665778452.8193981@apps.rackspace.com> From: Bruce Perens Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 18:33:55 +0100 Message-ID: To: "David P. Reed" Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a89e905eb162635" Subject: Re: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport Layer" X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2022 17:34:08 -0000 --0000000000003a89e905eb162635 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On the other hand, people have been lecturing me about cognitive radio since 1980, and it still doesn't work. FCC is pretty good about handing out special testing authority if you want to _actually_demonstrate_something_. Rather than theorize. It gets you a _lot_ farther when you ask for spectrum and rule changes. Thanks Bruce On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 9:14 PM David P. Reed via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > Hi Dave - > > > > Well, you may not be happy with my response, but I think my views below > are likely to play out in some form that is pretty predictable. I think it > will be a bad result in Space. (The idea of Space being "free" is very > unlikely to occur, just as unlikely as the current Internet was to happen > in 1975.) > > > > > Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:31:35 -0700 > > From: Dave Taht > > To: "David P. Reed" > > Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > Subject: Re: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport Layer" > > Message-ID: > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Dear David: > > > > Would it cheer you up any to learn, that 15+ years after the debate > > over UWB ended, that it's finally seeing FAR more > > major uptake and reasonable standardization, and actual working chips? > > > > [DPR} not that much cheered up, actually. While that disaster around UWB > got me interested in how the politics worked, that isn't what depressed me. > I won't be cheered up until the FCC stops treating the spectrum like > property and started basing its decisions on achieving fully scalable > wireless networking. UWB doesn't address that issue. It's unscalable for > the same reasons - the misunderstanding of information theory and physics > of propagation that remains endemic in the whole framework of spectrum > "property rights". > > > > It did me. I was pretty scarred by that mess also, and what was it? > > the 272 notches the FCC demanded be cut out of it, which swamped > > circuit design capabilities at the time... but not as bad as you. > > > > I didn't know until recently that it had hit iphones in 2019. and was > > part of the airtags, nor that the baseline latency on the things was > > 50us, with admittedly only a 1000 bit payload - Still crippled as to > > distance, and total bandwidth to under 10mbits, but, power usage is > > *amazing*. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband > > > > The SPARK chips in particular have a nice looking devkit. > > > > Anyway... just as the swamp of ipx and non-interoperable email systems > > finally died... > > > > You can't in the end, keep a good idea down. Maybe on average it takes > > 25 years to settle on saner things. > > > > It's taken over 50, and counting, for the FCC to acknowledge that > co-channel signalling actually works, because in digital systems we have > channel coding since Shannon first wrote about information theory. And that > is only the beginning of what is wrong with the "property" model, which > assumes all wireless signals require a perfectly clear channel. > > > > The FCC still doesn't acknowledge that Cooperative signalling protocols > can create huge capacity gains, or that it's possible that multiple > co-channel signals can actually create channel capacity that grows with the > number of antennas (as long as modest cooperation is ensured). > > > > The FCC still doesn't acknowledge that the Internet is a unifying > "service" that obviates almost all of the concepts of "allocating spectrum" > to "services". (they still treat Broadcast services separately from > telephony, and telephony separately from Land Mobile, etc.) So, for > example, Emergency Communications is regulated as if the Internet cannot be > utilized, as just one example. In other words, to a thoughtful > communications engineer, the FCC is a joke. > > > > Mostly this is due to two factors. 1. Property rights creates opportunity > for scarcity based monopoly to be granted by the government to its friends. > 2. The folks who have demonstrated these technologies (using information > theory and propagation physics and internetworking of wireless nets) are > paid entirely by the would be monopolists (what used to be called "The > Phone Company", the evil conspiracy of The President's Analyst, which you > might have seen). The FCC is a captured regulator. And its role, sanctified > by Congress is to create siloed monopolies. Not for the public good, but > for the control of communications and enrichment of the controllers. > > > > > > ... We have centuries to sort the solar system's internet out, and the > more > > we can do to convince the next generation as to the right principles > > to apply to it, the better. > > > > I don't think the World Radio Conference (which manages all RF services in > the world, including the US), even has thought about Space, but to be > honest, what they want is to control all Space communications on behalf of > all governments, most of which derive substantial revenue by blocking > innovative new ideas. > > > > I am sad that is true, but it is almost certainly gonna happen. The DoD > will play the same role it did with radio in the beginning of the 20th > century, buying up all the patents, blocking any new entrants, and > eventually creating RCA, a monopoly on all radio technology. That will > almost certainly happen to the Solar System's communications (and property > rights on messages from the earth to asteroids will be *owned* by some > company, backed by the coercive power of the governments colonizing space).' > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Starlink mailing list > > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Starlink Digest, Vol 19, Issue 7 > > *************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink > -- Bruce Perens K6BP --0000000000003a89e905eb162635 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On the other hand, people have been lecturing me about cog= nitive radio since 1980, and it still doesn't work. FCC is pretty good = about handing out special testing authority if you want to _actually_demons= trate_something_. Rather than theorize. It gets you a _lot_ farther when yo= u ask for spectrum and rule changes.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thank= s

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Bruce

On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at= 9:14 PM David P. Reed via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote:

Hi D= ave -=C2=A0

=C2=A0=

Well, = you may not be happy with my response, but I think my views below are likel= y to play out in some form that is pretty predictable. I think it will be a= bad result in Space. (The idea of Space being "free" is very unl= ikely to occur, just as unlikely as the current Internet was to happen in 1= 975.)

=C2=A0=

> D= ate: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 12:31:35 -0700
> From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com><= br>> To: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@deepplum.com>
> Cc: starlink@lists.buf= ferbloat.net
> Subject: Re: [Starlink] The DoD "Transport La= yer"
> Message-ID:
> <CA= A93jw4bZBDf3jJ-dboBbf9PS2TsYYJhW+myWHNUdOt7CJqWTw@mail.gmail.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"UTF-8"
>
>= ; Dear David:
>
> Would it cheer you up any to learn, that 15+= years after the debate
> over UWB ended, that it's finally seein= g FAR more
> major uptake and reasonable standardization, and actual = working chips?
>

[DPR} = not that much cheered up, actually. While that disaster around UWB got me i= nterested in how the politics worked, that isn't what depressed me. I w= on't be cheered up until the FCC stops treating the spectrum like prope= rty and started basing its decisions on achieving fully scalable wireless n= etworking. UWB doesn't address that issue. It's unscalable for the = same reasons - the misunderstanding of information theory and physics of pr= opagation that remains endemic in the whole framework of spectrum "pro= perty rights".=C2=A0


&g= t; It did me. I was pretty scarred by that mess also, and what was it?
&= gt; the 272 notches the FCC demanded be cut out of it, which swamped
>= ; circuit design capabilities at the time... but not as bad as you.
>=
> I didn't know until recently that it had hit iphones in 2019.= and was
> part of the airtags, nor that the baseline latency on the = things was
> 50us, with admittedly only a 1000 bit payload - Still cr= ippled as to
> distance, and total bandwidth to under 10mbits, but, p= ower usage is
> *amazing*.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/= wiki/Ultra-wideband
>
> The SPARK chips in particular have= a nice looking devkit.
>
> Anyway... just as the swamp of ipx= and non-interoperable email systems
> finally died...
>
&g= t; You can't in the end, keep a good idea down. Maybe on average it tak= es
> 25 years to settle on saner things.

=C2=A0=

It'= ;s taken over 50, and counting, for the FCC to=C2=A0acknowledge that co-cha= nnel signalling actually works, because in digital systems we have channel = coding since Shannon first wrote about information theory. And that is only= the beginning of what is wrong with the "property" model, which = assumes all wireless signals require a perfectly clear channel.

=C2=A0=

The FC= C still doesn't acknowledge that Cooperative signalling protocols can c= reate huge capacity gains, or that it's possible that multiple co-chann= el signals can actually create channel capacity that grows with the number = of antennas (as long as modest cooperation is ensured).

=C2=A0=

The FC= C still doesn't acknowledge that the Internet is a unifying "servi= ce" that obviates almost all of the concepts of "allocating spect= rum" to "services". (they still treat Broadcast services sep= arately from telephony, and telephony separately from Land Mobile, etc.) So= , for example, Emergency Communications is regulated as if the Internet can= not be utilized, as just one example. In other words, to a thoughtful commu= nications engineer, the FCC is a joke.

=C2=A0=

Mostly= this is due to two factors. 1. Property rights creates opportunity for sca= rcity based monopoly to be granted by the government to its friends. 2. The= folks who have demonstrated these technologies (using information theory a= nd propagation physics and internetworking of wireless nets) are paid entir= ely by the would be monopolists (what used to be called "The Phone Com= pany", the evil conspiracy of The President's Analyst, which you m= ight have seen). The FCC is a captured regulator. And its role, sanctified = by Congress is to create siloed monopolies. Not for the public good, but fo= r the control of communications and enrichment of the controllers.


&g= t;
> ... We have centuries to sort the solar system's internet o= ut, and the more
> we can do to convince the next generation as to th= e right principles
> to apply to it, the better.

=C2=A0=

I don&= #39;t think the World Radio Conference (which manages all RF services in th= e world, including the US), even has thought about Space, but to be honest,= what they want is to control all Space communications on behalf of all gov= ernments, most of which derive substantial revenue by blocking innovative n= ew ideas.

=C2=A0=

I am s= ad that is true, but it is almost certainly gonna happen. The DoD will play= the same role it did with radio in the beginning of the 20th century, buyi= ng up all the patents, blocking any new entrants, and eventually creating R= CA, a monopoly on all radio technology. That will almost certainly happen t= o the Solar System's communications (and property rights on messages fr= om the earth to asteroids will be *owned* by some company, backed by the co= ercive power of the governments colonizing space).'


&g= t;
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subjec= t: Digest Footer
>
> _________________________________________= ______
> Starlink mailing list
> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
>
&g= t;
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Starlink= Digest, Vol 19, Issue 7
> ***************************************>

_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlin= k@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink


--
Bruce Per= ens K6BP
--0000000000003a89e905eb162635--