FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

Carlos Alcantar carlos at race.com
Wed Aug 26 13:38:16 CDT 2009


I believe a lot of people are thinking the same way that fiber to the home is broadband.  Looking at some poll results from a calix webinar it looks like most people submitting for stimulus money are going down that path of fiber to the home as gpon and active Ethernet seem to be the front runners.  If anyone cares to look at the poll

http://www.calix.com/bbs/


bottom right.

-carlos

-----Original Message-----
From: jim deleskie [mailto:deleskie at gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: Carlos Alcantar; nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

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homes, it's outdated before we even finish.



On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred at cisco.com> wrote:
> 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 -
> 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 at fred.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM
>> To: nanog at 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list