FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

jim deleskie deleskie at gmail.com
Wed Aug 26 19:12:41 CDT 2009


Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal.  I
though it was Orewell that made some more equal then others. :)

-jim

On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy<r.engehausen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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