Start with Ron Wyden On Thu, Mar 4, 2021, 7:54 PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am planning to take my time on this. I would like for example, to > at least communicate well with a republican senator and a democratic one. > > Admittedly, if we can upgrade everybody to 100Mbit, everybody can have > all 4 home members being couch potatoes in front of HD netflix and > there won't be much motivation to do anything else. > > > https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/03/04/1722256/senators-call-on-fcc-to-quadruple-base-high-speed-internet-speeds > > Anybody know these guys? > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM David P. Reed <dpr...@deepplum.com> wrote: > > > > This is an excellent proposal. I am happy to support it somehow. > > > > > > > > I strongly recommend trying to find a way to make sure it doesn't become > a proposal put forward by "progressive" potlitical partisans. (this is hard > for me, because my politics are more aligned with the Left than with the > self-described conservatives and right-wing libertarians. > > > > > > > > This is based on personal experience starting in 2000 and continuing > through 2012 or so with two issues: > > > > > > > > 1. Open Spectrum (using computational radio networking to make a > scalable framework for dense wireless extremely wideband internetworking). > I along with a small number of others started this as a non-partisan > effort. It became (due to lobbyists and "activists") considered to be a > socialist taking of property from spectrum "owners". After that, it became > an issue where a subset of the Democratic Party (progressives) decided to > make it a wedge issue in political form. (It should be noted that during > this time, a Republican Secretary of Commerce took up the idea of making > UWB legal, and fought off lobbyists to some extent, though the resulting > regulation was ineffective because it was too weak to be usable). > > > > > > > > 2. Network Neutrality or Open Internet. Here the key issue was really > about keeping Internet routing intermediaries from being selective about > what packets they would deliver and what ones they would not. The design of > the Internet was completely based on open carriage of all packets without > the routers billing for or metering based on end-to-end concerns. Again, > for a variety of reasons, this simple idea got entangled with partisanship > politically - such that advocates for an Open Internet were seen to be > promoting both Democratic Party and Silicon Valley Tech interests. In fact, > the case for Open Internet is not primarily political. It's about > scalability of the infrastructure and the ability to carry Internet packets > over any concatenation of paths, for mutual benefit to all users. (That > "mutual benefit" concept does seem to be alien to a certain kind of > individualist libertarian cult thinking that is a small subset of > Republican Party membership). > > > > > > > > If this becomes yet another Democratic Party initiative, it will > encounter resistance, both from Republican-identified polarizing reaction, > and also from the corporate part of the Democratic Party (so called Blue > Dog Democrats where telecom providers provide the largest quantity of > funding to those Democrats). > > > > > > > > Some "progressive" Democrats will reach out to add this to their > "platform" as a partisan issue. > > > > > > > > It may feel nice to have some of them on your side. Like you aren't > alone. But by accepting this "help" on this issue, you may be guaranteeing > its failure. > > > > > > > > In a world where compromise is allowed to generate solutions to > problems, polarizing would not be effective to kill a good idea, rather > merely raising the issue would lead to recognizing the problem is important > and joint work to create a solution. In 1975, the Internet was not > partisan. Its designers weren't party members or loyalists. We were solving > a problem of creating a scalable, efficient alternative to the "Bell > System" model of communications where every piece of gear got involved in > deciding what to do with each bit of information, where there were "voice > bits" and "data bits", "business bits" and "residential bits", and every > piece of equipment had to be told everything about each bits (through call > setup). > > > > > > > > But today, compromise is not considered possible, even at the level of > defining the problem! > > > > > > > > So this simple architectural approach to clearing out the brush that has > grown like weeds throughout the Internet, especially at the "access > provider" will become political. > > > > > > > > Since in the end of the day it threatens to reduce control and revenues > to edge "access providers" that come from selling higher-rate pipes, the > natural opposition will likely come from lobbyists for telecom incumbents, > funded by equipment providers for those incumbents (Cisco, Alcatel Lucent > and their competitors), with Republicans and Blue-Dog Democrats carrying > their water. That's tthe likely polarization axis. I can say that > Progressive members of the Democratic Party will love to have a new issue > to raise funds. I can make the argument that it should be supported by > Republicans or Independents, though. If so, it will be opposed by Democrats > and Progressives, and the money will flow through Blue Dogs to them. > > > > > > > > Either way, you won't get it adopted at scale, IF you make it a Party > Loyalist issue. > > > > > > > > So please look that "gift horse" of Democratic Party support in the > mouth when it comes. > > > > > > > > Accept the support, ONLY if you can be assured it isn't accompanied by a > use in polarization of the issue. In other words, if you can get support > from Republicans, too. > > > > > > > > Since I am neither an R or a D, I'd be happy to support it however it is > supported. Personally, I don't want it to be affiliated with stances on > abortion rights, or defunding the police, etc. I have views on those > issues, but they aren't issues that should be conflated with openness of > the Internet. > > > > > > > > (Since many seem to think the world is a dichotomy between Left and > Right or Democrat or Republican, let me explain. My core political view has > always been that centralizing functions in government unnecessarily is the > same thing as despotism, that the ends don't justify the means, but that > organization of functions in society "organically" is better than any > governmental approach. This view is compatible with the Internet's founding > principles. I view the Democrats and the Republicans as centralizers of > power, each in their own way. Which is why I will not be loyal to either. > That Socialists want to create centralized power just as much as > Conservatives do. But making decentralized structures work isn't just a > matter of creating a distributed ledger or a free cryptocurrency, in fact > those things lead to centralizing power very efficiently.) > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:23am, "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com> > said: > > > > > Link below: > > > > > > If anyone would care to edit or comment. I really struggled with a > > > means to present an > > > "upgrade in place" in a uniformly positive manner. I had to cut out a > > > lot of cusswords. > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T21on7g1MqQZoK91epUdxLYFGdtyLRgBat0VXoC9e3I/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > Secondly, I also decided that I didn't care so much about having to > > > submit this in the context (and noise) of the rural broadband thing, > > > so the pressure came off me to get it done by feb 20, with the > > > inevitable outcome of me not getting on it til this morning. :/ > > > > > > Getting there, but it's been kind of lonely... I can do a > > > videoconference today between now and 11AM > > > if anyone would like to join in at: > > > https://tun.taht.net:8443/group/bufferbloat and will be back online > > > tonight after 6PM. > > > > > > That said, it would be good to fire this off there, and/or do an "open > > > letter", do a press release, and open up more shots at whatever > > > government orgs we can aim at. > > > > > > PS It would help my focus a lot if some folk tossed some dough into my > > > patreon. https://www.patreon.com/dtaht and longer term, if this > > > develops into something good, we can do a bake sale for a press > > > release. > > > > > > -- > > > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public > > > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > > > > > d...@taht.net <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Cerowrt-devel mailing list > > > Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net > > > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel > > > > > > > -- > "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public > relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled" - Richard Feynman > > d...@taht.net <Dave Täht> CTO, TekLibre, LLC Tel: 1-831-435-0729 > _______________________________________________ > Bloat mailing list > bl...@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bloat >
_______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
