FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

jim deleskie deleskie at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 18:44:48 CDT 2009


Having worked for rather large MSO in past I can tell you the issue
with this that the cost man power and engineering time to go back and
replace today with 3-5 forward technology is mostly like more then
delta between copper and fiber today.

-jim

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Richard Bennett<richard at 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 at hopcount.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM
> To: Fred Baker
> Cc: nanog at 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?
>
>
>
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list