FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

jim deleskie deleskie at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 18:51:35 CDT 2009


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 at 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 at blacklotus.net>
> To: nanog at nanog.org <nanog at 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 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at 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."
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list