last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
joseph.snyder at gmail.com
Sat Mar 24 10:30:32 CDT 2012
USF is more of a free for all get ISPs to build in 80% of the locations that nobody would build in their right mind vs a mini monopoly model for l2 that I equate this with.
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
We've been funding it for years without getting it because of the stupid way in which it has been funded.
I suggest you look into USF in more detail.
On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Joseph Snyder wrote:
> Lol too early in the morning, that much for so few, but if you are going to govt fund copper replacement, it's probably the way to go. Not sure how costly that would be in the US since even in the cities there are a lot of duplexes.
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> Joseph Snyder <joseph.snyder at gmail.com> wrote:
> Any details on how much this cost, maybe I just missed it in the article. 40k. It sounds interesting but in the US this would only make sense in cities and most people don't live in MDUs. Where I live a lot of peoples driveways are a mile or two long.
> Marcel Plug <marcelplug at gmail.com> wrote:
> This article from arstechnica is right on topic. Its about how the
> city of Amsterdam built an open-access fibre network. It seems to me
> this is the right way to do it, or at least very close to the right
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:18:26 -1000, Michael Painter said:
>>> "The indication of above average or below average is based on a comparison of the actual test result to the current NTIA
>>> definition of broadband which is 768 kbps download and 200 kbps upload. Any test result above the NTIA definition is
>>> considered above average, and any result below is considered below average."
>> That's the national definition of "broadband" that we're stuck with. To show
>> how totally cooked the books are, consider that when they compute "percent of
>> people with access to residential broadband", they do it on a per-county basis
>> - and if even *one* subscriber in one corner of the county has broadband, the
>> entire county counts.
More information about the NANOG