Re Berninger v. FCC: Cert petition filed with Supreme Court today

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () gmail com>
> Date: October 1, 2017 at 12:46:23 PM EDT
> To: Brett Glass <brett () lariat net>, dave () farber net, ip <ip () listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re Berninger v. FCC: Cert petition filed with Supreme Court today
>
> > On 10/1/2017 12:22 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> > At 09:50 AM 10/1/2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > > Wireless has fundamentally different contention constraints from wired. Wired is a dedicated channel.  Wireless is 
> > > shared.
> > This is absolutely incorrect - and demonstrates one of the many misconceptions that some seem to harbor about 
> > wireless. We at LARIAT use dedicated point-to-point links for high bandwidth customers. Cable modems use DOCSIS, 
> > which is a contention-based protocol. And FTTH (fiber to the home) systems are multiplexed at the local hub.
> > > (Of course, both encounter sharing at the switch, since networking is all about shared access, but switch 
> > > contention is quite different from radio contention. Radio doesn't do buffering and contention detection is harder.)
> > This is also incorrect. The point-to-multipoint radios we use in our 
> ...
>
> Brett, actually you substantiate my point.  You are using a specialized, point-to-point technology, which is hugely 
> different from the wireless technologies used more broadly.
>
> My point is not that wired has no issues while wireless has onerous ones.  My point is that wired has fewer issues, 
> that are simpler to deal with, and that have a longer history of being dealt with well, at scale.  My other point is 
> that wired can constrain contention issues in ways that wireless cannot or at least -- to acknowledge the specialized 
> kind of service you cite -- most cannot.
>
>
> > > By way of a very simple experiment I had to conduct this morning:  I'm renting an apartment this week; it has 
> > > Wi-Fi-to-cable Internet access. For convenience when traveling, I use a mobile router, so I only have to configure 
> > > it to the local access; then my devices access it, without further configuration.  I was getting terrible 
> > > throughput, in the 5-10Mbps range.(*)  The router was doing Wi-Fi to the cable router and my devices were doing 
> > > Wi-Fi to the mobile router.  I switched the mobile router to wired access to the cable router.  Throughput is now 
> > > 30-50Mbps.
> > This is an invalid apples-to-oranges comparison. The equipment and protocols used by a WISP for its wireless 
> > broadband delivery network are very different from an unmanaged home Wi-Fi network and are far more capable and 
> > reliable. 
>
> Please review the simple, absolute sentence that prompted my original posting.  Then note your current, careful 
> references to the very specific type of wireless you offer.  The issue is not that your statements about the current 
> service are wrong, but that they don't generalize to the simple, absolute statement I commented on.
>
> For any issue, it is always possible to cite a specific case that nicely demonstrates whatever wonderful 
> characteristics one wants.  The problem is with generalizing it to a wider range of users and/or a much larger number 
> of users.
>
>
> > There are many reasons why you may have experienced problems - including RF interference within your building, 
> > bandwidth and/or spectrum hogging by your wireless devices, and/or improper configuration of your router. Even the 
> > "wireless repeater" products commonly sold in stores are inefficient and should be considered a last resort; we do 
> > not recommend their use. Instead, we recommend the installation of additional Wi-Fi access points, operating on 
> > appropriately chosen channels to eliminate interference.
>
> All true, but again you demonstrate my point:  wireless is more challenging to do well, in the general case.
>
>
> > > There is nothing mystical or arcane about the explanation for this difference.  Having both links share the same 
> > > radio transmission space makes contention an issue.
> > The details appear "mystical" and "arcane" to the average user. However, we configure our users' equipment, and our 
> > own, so that this is not a problem. Only if they later add troublesome devices or misconfigure their equipment are 
> > there issues.
> > In short, your experience does not reflect any problem with wireless broadband delivery but rather the perils of not 
> > configuring one's home Wi-Fi network correctly - an issue which can (and does!) occur on wired networks just as 
> > easily.
>
> Sorry, but I disagree.  The essential point is that wireless introduces additional opportunities for contention -- 
> and on reflection I realized I left out the likelihood that my mobile router probably only has one radio and 
> therefore can't do simultaneous interaction with the cable router and my devices; sigh -- and often has challenges in 
> dealing with the contention.
>
> d/
>
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20171001214422:34F12908-A713-11E7-95B0-BAEFF2AAD71E
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com