Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country, maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal. I though it was Orewell that made some more equal then others. :) -jim On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy<r.engehausen@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it has become obvious that the correct definition of broadband depends on the users location. A house in the boonies is not going to get fiber, Perhaps the minimum acceptable bandwidth should vary by area. A definition of "area" could be some sort of user density measurement by census tract.
Deepak Jain wrote:
Key characteristics of broadband : always on capability (reasonably, DSL ok, dial up no). I would argue 7mb is broadband even if its over carrier pigeon. (meets always on criteria).
I think the threshold for cut off is somewhere between 256kbit/s and 1.5mbit/s. If you don't think 1.5mbit is broadband, you need to consider tiers... Most of the worlds population will not see *that* speed in 20yrs.
Deepak
----- Original Message ----- From: Jeffrey Lyon <jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net> To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wed Aug 26 19:09:47 2009 Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
I would argue that "broadband" is the upper X percentile of bandwidth options available to residential users. For instance, something like Verizon FiOS would be broadband while a 7 Mbps cable wouldn't.
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Richard Bennett<richard@bennett.com> wrote:
They have a saying in politics to the effect that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." This is a pretty good illustration. We have the opportunity to improve connectivity in rural America through the wise expenditure of taxpayer funding, and it's best not to squander it by insisting on top-shelf fiber or nothing at all. Let's push the fiber a little deeper, and bridge the last 20,000 feet with something that won't be too expensive to replace in 3-5 years. The budget ($7B) just isn't there to give every barn some nice GigE fiber, even though it would make the cows happy.
Richard Bennett
-----Original Message----- From: Joe Abley [mailto:jabley@hopcount.ca] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM To: Fred Baker Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On 26-Aug-2009, at 13:38, Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband implies fiber to the home.
I'm sure I remember hearing from someone that the timelines for disbursement of stimulus money were tight enough that many people expected much of the money to remain unspent.
Does narrowing the scope of the funding to mandate fibre have the effect of funding more and better infrastructure, or will it simply result in less money being made available? Does it matter?