FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

Wed Aug 26 20:16:05 UTC 2009

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 at 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 homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
>
>
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>