Net neutrality filing

Jeremy Austin jhaustin at gmail.com
Sat Jun 17 21:10:41 CST 2017


On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Satchell <list at satchell.net> wrote:

>
> It does have a few color pictures, though.  And one comic strip.
>

Upvote for use of 'caisson'.

There is at least one thing that Sen. Ted Stevens got right; in the fiber
era, the Internet really *is* a series of tubes.

I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
(parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
municipal boundaries qua boundaries. At least it seems to me that you are
wanting to encourage rural development, given that the current broadband
'divide' is largely a rural vs. urban one, according to the 2016 Broadband
Progress Report.

Natural monopolies worked for electrification. Do you anticipate Title I
providers as being sufficient to the task of narrowing this divide, with or
without a federal incentives program? Historically, federal incentives have
largely gone to Title II providers or their affiliated ISPs, if I
understand the math correctly.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/02/13/in-infrastructure-plan-a-big-opening-for-rural-broadband/

Jeremy Austin


More information about the NANOG mailing list