Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds

--0000000000002b7f33060b7c0eca
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Trying to put technical requirements like this into law and public policy
is an extremely terrible idea. This letter should never be sent.

The regulatory agencies today don't have the manpower or expertise to
adequately enforce the more generic broadband deployment rules. What
fantasy world exists where they have the manpower or expertise to monitor
for and enforce something like this? Hell, there are constant , legitimate
technical discussions between experts on HOW to *properly* monitor things
just like this. We want to have someone at the FCC deciding what that
should look like?

4.4 What the hell? The regulatory agencies should be allocating spectrum,
and making sure it's not used improperly with the rules of allocation.
Making it work 'better' is OUR job in the technical community. Not an FCC
rulemaker.

4.8 There are zero scenarios there should ever be regulatory rules about
device software. In our space (non-ISP) , TONS of people run older versions
of vendor code. Why? The shit DOESN'T WORK RIGHT YET and it causes other
problems. You suggest that regulatory bodies be involved in dictating
anything about this?

The bufferbloat work belongs in the technical area, full stop. Nowhere near
regulatory / legal.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:57=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht <[email protected]> wro=
te:

> Over here:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLM=
BY4vH4/edit
>
> Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC's
> NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the
> broadband speeds beyond 100/20 Mbit.
>
> "Calls for further bandwidth increases are analogous to calling for
> cars to have top speeds of 100, 200, or 500 miles per hour. Without
> calling also for better airbags, bumpers, brakes, or steering wheels,
> (or roads designed to minimize travel delay), these initiatives will
> fail (and are failing) to meet the needs of present and future users
> of the internet."
>
> Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in flux...
>
>
> --
> :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab
> Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos
>

--0000000000002b7f33060b7c0eca
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Trying to put technical requirements like this into law an=
d public policy is an extremely terrible idea. This letter should=C2=A0neve=
r be sent.=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>The regulatory agencies today don&#39;t=
 have the manpower or expertise to adequately enforce the more generic broa=
dband deployment rules. What fantasy world exists where they have the manpo=
wer or expertise=C2=A0to monitor for and enforce something like this? Hell,=
 there are constant , legitimate technical discussions between experts on H=
OW to *properly* monitor things just like this. We want to have someone at =
the FCC deciding what that should look like?</div><div><br></div><div>4.4 W=
hat the hell? The regulatory agencies should be allocating spectrum, and ma=
king sure it&#39;s not used improperly with the rules of allocation. Making=
 it work &#39;better&#39; is OUR job in the technical community. Not an FCC=
 rulemaker.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>4.8 There are zero scenarios the=
re should ever be regulatory rules about device software. In our space (non=
-ISP) , TONS of people run older versions of vendor code. Why? The shit DOE=
SN&#39;T WORK RIGHT YET and it causes other problems. You suggest that regu=
latory bodies be involved in dictating anything about this?=C2=A0</div><div=
><br></div><div>The bufferbloat work belongs in the technical area, full st=
op. Nowhere near regulatory / legal.=C2=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gma=
il_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 7:5=
7=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">dave.taht=
@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding=
-left:1ex">Over here:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK=
-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://docs.goo=
gle.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit</a><br=
>
<br>
Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC&#39;s<=
br>
NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the<br>
broadband speeds beyond 100/20 Mbit.<br>
<br>
&quot;Calls for further bandwidth increases are analogous to calling for<br=
>
cars to have top speeds of 100, 200, or 500 miles per hour. Without<br>
calling also for better airbags, bumpers, brakes, or steering wheels,<br>
(or roads designed to minimize travel delay), these initiatives will<br>
fail (and are failing) to meet the needs of present and future users<br>
of the internet.&quot;<br>
<br>
Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in flux...<b=
r>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
:( My old R&amp;D campus is up for sale: <a href=3D"https://tinyurl.com/yur=
tlab" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab</a><=
br>
Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos<br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000002b7f33060b7c0eca--