Elon Musk can afford to take starlink to markey without the government subsidies. It's past time to stop subsidizing the richest person on the planet.
Bob On Dec 16, 2023, 1:44 PM, at 1:44 PM, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain <nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >When someone is speaking with a C-suit of the 25Gbps ISP that still >believes "in over-provisioning. QoS/QoE is for those ISPs which have >less >bandwidth than they need" (paraphrasing) - that particular someone >knows >that there is still SO much work in front of us. > >*trying to bring this thread back on track :-) > >So this thread started with FCC denial to Starlink. Those 640k >locations >will not be served in the coming years (1-5 years, for that particular >amount of $). Their only hope was to get served by Starlink. If FCC >will >decide to give those money to someone else, it's total farce. Starlink, >in >this particular case, was their only hope. Do you really think that you >will see WISPs popping up at those locations? Do you see FISPs doing >it? Or >anyone with DOCSIS? No way. > >This decision was pure political BS - a revenge against Musk. And those >people living at these locations in question are the ones that will >loose >the most in the crossfire. It's sad. No matter how much mental >gymnastics >you want to apply here in order to legitimise this post-facto. No >internet? >Starlink would bring at least some internet connectivity to them - I, >those >people or anyone without a pure political bias in this case, should not >give a flying F that "THiS iS nOt A rEaL 1gbps/500mbps bRoADband" or >whatever. They want and need at least some internet connectivity. The >only >way to deliver it to them in a reasonable timeframe is Starlink. > >All the best, > >Frank > >Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > > >https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > >Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > >iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > >Skype: casioa5302ca > >frantisek.bor...@gmail.com > > >On Sat, Dec 16, 2023 at 7:48 PM Robert McMahon via Nnagain < >nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> >> And the excuse for not hiring women in the Criminal Division was they >have >> to deal with all these tough types, and women aren't up to that. And >I was >> amazed. I said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are >representing >> these tough types? They're all women. >> >> People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be >enough? >> When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when >there >> are nine. RBG >> >> Bob >> On Dec 16, 2023, at 9:30 AM, rjmcmahon via Nnagain < >> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>> >>> The president who ran Harvey Mudd College had to fix their computer >>> science problem of a 90% to 10% male to female ratio. She was asked, >>> "What's the goal?" She responded, "It should reflect to population >so >>> 50/50." The others said, "Be realistic." >>> >>> She was and she got it to 50/50 where it should be in every >technology >>> group.Though we have more improvements to be done. >>> >>> >https://hechingerreport.org/an-unnoticed-result-of-the-decline-of-men-in-college-its-harder-for-women-to-get-in/ >>> >>> There is now way to fix a problem without getting passed the denial >>> phase. This list population, and the LEO worshiping of Musk >displayed >>> here by its constituents, are very much white male things. Not >noticing >>> this & staying silent on this shows a lack of integrity by the >group. My >>> judgment. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>>> to be very clear, I am in no way saying that anyone's (let alone >>>> saying women's) views are not desired. I think a diversity of >views if >>>> extremely valuable. >>>> >>>> I just get my back up when people say things like 'there need to >more >>>> X in charge' (for any value of X that refers to a characteristic >that >>>> someone is born with) >>>> >>>> David Lang >>>> >>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Dave Taht wrote: >>>> >>>> This is principally a male dominated list, and I in general assume >>>>> that the public debate over fiber, bandwidth, etc, etc skews >heavily >>>>> male also. >>>>> >>>>> It is a very good set of questions to ask about how the internet >>>>> should be structured to best meet the needs of both sexes, and >how >>>>> that has changed over time, and may change in the future! I >hesitate >>>>> to even make one overbroad conclusion! Permanent connectivity and >>>>> messaging seems more important to women than men, and a phone >more >>>>> important than fiber. Security (tracking and/or protecting kids), >>>>> also. It is something I would rather research than draw premature >>>>> conclusions from. >>>>> >>>>> >https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+men+and+women+use+the+internet+differently >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 1:42 PM David Lang via Starlink >>>>> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> why do you think telehealth won't work over LEO services? >>>>>> >>>>>> I've used it personally. >>>>>> >>>>>> Even if women use telehealth more than men, that doesn't say >that >>>>>> women have any >>>>>> particular advantage in moving the bits around that make >telehealth >>>>>> possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> David Lang >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Women are the primary users and providers of telehealth >services. >>>>>>> They are >>>>>>> using broadband to care for our population. They also run most >of >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> addiction services across our country, whatever the addiction >may >>>>>>> be. So >>>>>>> gender actually matters. Ask them as providers. Telehealth >doesn't >>>>>>> work over >>>>>>> LEO (nor does it matter much for men on boats.) Same for >distance >>>>>>> learning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/women-more-likely-telehealth-patients-providers-covid-19-pandemic/608153/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As Washington considers which virtual care flexibilities should >>>>>>> remain in >>>>>>> place post-COVID-19, experts are flagging that paring back >>>>>>> telehealth access >>>>>>> and affordability will disproportionately affect women, even as >a >>>>>>> growing >>>>>>> share of startups emerge to address women’s unique health >needs. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While women are more likely than men to visit doctors and >consume >>>>>>> healthcare >>>>>>> services in general, telehealth seems to be uniquely attractive >to >>>>>>> women. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> who exactly do you think is calling for there to be no >Internet >>>>>>>> access? and what in the world does the sex of individuals have >to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> with shipping bits around? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Starlink (and hopefully it's future competitors) provides a >way to >>>>>>>> get >>>>>>>> Internet service to everyone without having to run fiber to >every >>>>>>>> house. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for the parallels with rural electrification, if that >problem >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> to be faced today, would the right answer be massive public >>>>>>>> agencies >>>>>>>> to build and run miles of wire from massive central power >plants? >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> would the right answer be solar + batteries in individual >houses >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the most rural folks, with small modular reactors to power the >>>>>>>> larger >>>>>>>> population areas? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just because there was only one way to achieve a goal in the >past >>>>>>>> doesn't mean that approach is the best thing to do today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> David Lang >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, rjmcmahon wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We're trying to modernize America. LBJ helped do it for >>>>>>>>> electricity >>>>>>>>> decades ago. It's our turn to step up to the plate. >Tele-health >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> distance learning requires us to do so. There is so much to >>>>>>>>> follow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A reminder what many women went through before LBJ showed up. >I'm >>>>>>>>> skeptical a patriarchy under Musk is even close to capable. >We >>>>>>>>> probably >>>>>>>>> need a woman to lead us, or at least motivate us to do our >best >>>>>>>>> work for >>>>>>>>> our country and to be an example to the world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A Hill Country farm wife had to do her chores even if she was >ill >>>>>>>>> – no >>>>>>>>> matter how ill. Because Hill Country women were too poor to >afford >>>>>>>>> proper >>>>>>>>> medical care they often suffered perineal tears in >childbirth. >>>>>>>>> During the >>>>>>>>> 1930s, the federal government sent physicians to examine a >>>>>>>>> sampling of >>>>>>>>> Hill Country women. The doctors found that, out of 275 women, >158 >>>>>>>>> had >>>>>>>>> perineal tears. Many of them, the team of gynecologists >reported, >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> third-degree tears, “tears so bad that it is difficult to see >how >>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>> stand on their feet.” But they were standing on their feet, >and >>>>>>>>> doing all >>>>>>>>> the chores that Hill Country wives had always done – hauling >the >>>>>>>>> water, >>>>>>>>> hauling the wood, canning, washing, ironing, helping with the >>>>>>>>> shearing, >>>>>>>>> the plowing and the picking. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Because there was no electricity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bob >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Frantisek, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 15, 2023, at 13:46, Frantisek Borsik via Nnagain >>>>>>>>>>>> <nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, technically speaking, one would like the advantages >of >>>>>>>>>>>> satcom >>>>>>>>>>>> such as starlink, to be at least 5gbit/s in 10 years time, >to >>>>>>>>>>>> overcome >>>>>>>>>>>> the 'tangled fiber' problem. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, not really. Starlink was about to address the issue of >>>>>>>>>>>> digital >>>>>>>>>>>> divide - >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I beg to differ. Starlink is a commercial enterprise with >the >>>>>>>>>>> goal to >>>>>>>>>>> make a profit by offering (usable) internet access >essentially >>>>>>>>>>> everywhere; it is not as far as I can tell an attempt at >>>>>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>>>>> reducing the digital divide (were often an important factor >is >>>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>>> necessarily location but financial means). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Every Inernet company " commercial enterprise with the goal >to >>>>>>>>>> make a >>>>>>>>>> profit by offering (usable) internet" don't dismiss a >company >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> of that. Starlink (and the other Satellite ISPs) all exist >to >>>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>>> people who can't use traditional wired infrastructure >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> delivering internet to those 640k locations, where there is >>>>>>>>>>>> literally >>>>>>>>>>>> none today. Fiber will NEVER get there. And it will get >there, >>>>>>>>>>>> it will >>>>>>>>>>>> be like 10 years down the road. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is IHO the wrong approach to take. The goal needs to >be a >>>>>>>>>>> universal FTTH access network (with the exception of >extreme >>>>>>>>>>> locations, >>>>>>>>>>> no need to pull fiber up to the highest Bivouac shelter on >Mt. >>>>>>>>>>> Whitney). >>>>>>>>>>> And f that takes a decade or two, so be it, this is >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure that >>>>>>>>>>> will keep on helping for many decades once rolled-out. >However >>>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>>> that time frame one should consider work-arounds for the >interim >>>>>>>>>>> period. >>>>>>>>>>> I would have naively thought starlink would qualify for >that >>>>>>>>>>> from a >>>>>>>>>>> technical perspective, but then the FCC documents actually >>>>>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>>>>> requirements and how they were or were not met/promised by >>>>>>>>>>> starlink was >>>>>>>>>>> mostly redacted. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> what do you consider 'extreme locations'? how long a run >between >>>>>>>>>> houses is 'too far'? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> we've seen the failure of commercial fiber monopolies in >cities >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> housing density of several houses per acre (and even where >there >>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>> apartment complexes there as well) because it's not >profitable >>>>>>>>>> enough. >>>>>>>>>> When you get into areas where it's 'how many acres per >house' the >>>>>>>>>> cost >>>>>>>>>> of running FTTH gets very high. I don't think this is the >>>>>>>>>> majority of >>>>>>>>>> the population of the US any longer (but I don't know for >sure), >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> it's very clearly the majority of the area of the US. And >once >>>>>>>>>> you get >>>>>>>>>> out of the major metro areas, even getting fiber to every >town or >>>>>>>>>> village becomes a major undertaking. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is running fiber 30 miles to support a village of 700 people >an >>>>>>>>>> 'extreme location'? let me introduce you to Vermontville MI >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermontville,_Michigan which >is >>>>>>>>>> less >>>>>>>>>> than an hours drive from the state capitol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> David Lang >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nnagain mailing list >>>>>>>>>> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Starlink mailing list >>>>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Nnagain mailing list >>> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Nnagain mailing list >> nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain >> > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Nnagain mailing list >nnag...@lists.bufferbloat.net >https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/nnagain
_______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
