FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
not to mention all the lightning-blasted-routers that will be prevented by FTTH :) even with several layers of protection I still accumulate about one dead interface of some sort each year on my very rural T-1... On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband implies fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred@cisco.com> wrote: -
infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment of DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a leap forward, not just waste it.
On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any anyone has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the gov funding there competition. Just my 2 cents.
-carlos
-----Original Message----- From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted@fred.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a number of years to come.
Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and
broadband
was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the
term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM.
of or relating to or being a communications network in which the bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals
(as
for voice or data or video)
That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed Internet".
Seconded
We're way past the time in which broadband meant more bits than baud, huh? Was it the other way around? I forget... :) Anyway: "Broadband" could be defined as a duplex channel that is some positive multiple of the BW needed to carry the lowest resolution, full-power, public broadcast TV channel currently permitted by FCC regulation. As technology and regulation changes, we'd always have a definition of "broadband" that is implementation independent, technology agnostic, and easy to grasp for most people. David Hiers CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP ADP Dealer Services 2525 SW 1st Ave. Suite 300W Portland, OR 97201 o: 503-205-4467 f: 503-402-3277 -----Original Message----- From: Dorn Hetzel [mailto:dhetzel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:16 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband not to mention all the lightning-blasted-routers that will be prevented by FTTH :) even with several layers of protection I still accumulate about one dead interface of some sort each year on my very rural T-1... On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband implies fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred@cisco.com> wrote: -
infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment of DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a leap forward, not just waste it.
On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any anyone has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the gov funding there competition. Just my 2 cents.
-carlos
-----Original Message----- From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted@fred.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a number of years to come.
Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and
broadband
was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the
term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM.
of or relating to or being a communications network in which the bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals
(as
for voice or data or video)
That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed Internet".
Seconded
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
participants (2)
-
Dorn Hetzel -
Hiers, David