Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
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?
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
And 640k is enough. When I started in this game 15 or so yrs back the 'backbone' in Canada was a 56k figure 8 loop, running frame relay. We moved to T1 a yr or so later. Buy the time I left Canada to work for internetMCI a yr later, we're @ DS3's in Canada. Technology evolves quickly. Just because some place does not have 'high-speed' internet now, doesn't mean they will not in 5 yrs. I sure we could site here and site all the places in the world they will not due to politics/poverty/all other bad things in the world, but its not reason to limit the goals of people that are part of these projects. -jim On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Deepak Jain<deepak@ai.net> 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?
-- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.lyon@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc.
Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - 21 to find out how to "protect your booty."
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?
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?
We are talking government handouts here and they never make sense.... jim deleskie wrote:
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.
Once upon a time, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> said:
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.
Nobody is forcing anybody to live out where high-speed Internet is not currently feasible (or at least not at a price that those residents want to pay). I live half a mile from a six lane highway; that doesn't mean that we have to build six lane highways to within half a mile of everybody in the country. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
Wrong analogy, you have no way to use all 6 lanes @ once. The highway is an aggregation device not access method. Unless you have 6 lanes into your driveway :) On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Chris Adams<cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> said:
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.
Nobody is forcing anybody to live out where high-speed Internet is not currently feasible (or at least not at a price that those residents want to pay). I live half a mile from a six lane highway; that doesn't mean that we have to build six lane highways to within half a mile of everybody in the country.
-- Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Roy 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
Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has. -j
----- Original Message ---- From: James Downs <egon@egon.cc> Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has. As an example of the above, Verizon has until 2017 to get FIOS to all of the neighborhoods of Washington DC (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/11/24/daily8.html). I am envious of many of my suburban-dwelling coworkers and friends who already have it. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com
That deadline is for video. Frank -----Original Message----- From: David Barak [mailto:thegameiam@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:25 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband ----- Original Message ---- From: James Downs <egon@egon.cc> Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has. As an example of the above, Verizon has until 2017 to get FIOS to all of the neighborhoods of Washington DC (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/11/24/daily8.html). I am envious of many of my suburban-dwelling coworkers and friends who already have it. David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com
James: I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal? If I had to guess, what really happened here is that the rural LEC is able to build out FTTH because they are counting on USF (high cost loop support and interstate common line support) to help pay it, while the LEC in an urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even with a dense customer base. Frank -----Original Message----- From: James Downs [mailto:egon@egon.cc] Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 1:07 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Roy 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
Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has. -j
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal?
The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able to refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades from being done by a 3rd party. However, I have seen reports that in a few areas, municipalities are starting to win lawsuits against them (in apparently the long appeals process).
urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even with a dense customer base.
That might apply to fiber, but even speed upgrades (Newer DSL services) are apparently subject to the same refusal process, but the rules are different across the country, too. -j
participants (7)
-
Chris Adams -
David Barak -
Deepak Jain -
Frank Bulk -
James Downs -
jim deleskie -
Roy