Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds
[email protected] Fri, 1 Dec 2023 19:57:55 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.nanog,gmane.org.operators.ausnog,gmane.org.operators.nznog |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D= utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Aga= in, these rules typically only relevant when you are taking government= funding or the government is looking to allocate future funding. Providers w= ho don=E2=80=99t take government funding are welcome to run their networks a= s they choose.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">Shane</div><= div dir=3D"ltr"><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">On Dec 1, 2023, at 7:35=E2=80=AF= PM, Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div>= <blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr">=EF=BB=BF<div dir=3D"ltr">Trying t= o put technical requirements like this into law and public policy is an extr= emely terrible idea. This letter should never be sent. <div><br></= div><div>The regulatory agencies today don't have the manpower or expertise t= o adequately enforce the more generic broadband deployment rules. What fanta= sy world exists where they have the manpower or expertise to monitor fo= r and enforce something like this? Hell, there are constant , legitimate tec= hnical discussions between experts on HOW to *properly* monitor things just l= ike this. We want to have someone at the FCC deciding what that should look l= ike?</div><div><br></div><div>4.4 What the hell? The regulatory agencies sho= uld be allocating spectrum, and making sure it's not used improperly with th= e rules of allocation. Making it work 'better' is OUR job in the technical c= ommunity. Not an FCC rulemaker. </div><div><br></div><div>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. W= hy? The shit DOESN'T WORK RIGHT YET and it causes other problems. You sugges= t that regulatory bodies be involved in dictating anything about this? = </div><div><br></div><div>The bufferbloat work belongs in the technical area= , full stop. Nowhere near regulatory / legal. </div></div><br><div clas= s=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 30, 2023= at 7:57=E2=80=AFPM Dave Taht <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">dav= [email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s= tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd= ing-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.googl= e.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit</a><br> <br> Us bufferbloat folk have been putting together a response to the FCC's<br> NOI (notice of inquiry) asking for feedback as to increasing the<br> broadband speeds beyond 100/20 Mbit.<br> <br> "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."<br> <br> Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in flux...<br= > <br> <br> -- <br> :( My old R&D campus is up for sale: <a href=3D"https://tinyurl.com/yurt= lab" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://tinyurl.com/yurtlab</a><br= > Dave T=C3=A4ht CSO, LibreQos<br> </blockquote></div> </div></blockquote></body></html>=