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

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

It would be better to keep the government out of it altogether, but that has little chance of happening. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tom Beecher" <beecher () beecher cc> 
To: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht () gmail com> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org>, "NZNOG" <NZNOG () list waikato ac nz>, "<ausnog () lists ausnog net>" <ausnog () 
lists ausnog net> 
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 6:34:49 PM 
Subject: Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds 


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 PM Dave Taht < dave.taht () gmail com > wrote: 


Over here: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/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 Täht CSO, LibreQos