FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

Roy r.engehausen at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 19:00:05 CDT 2009


I think it has become obvious that the correct definition of broadband 
depends on the users location.  A house in the boonies is not going to 
get fiber,  Perhaps the minimum acceptable bandwidth should vary by 
area.  A definition of "area" could be some sort of user density 
measurement by census tract.


Deepak Jain 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>   





More information about the NANOG mailing list