not to mention all the lightning-blasted-routers that will be prevented by FTTH :) even with several layers of protection I still accumulate about one dead interface of some sort each year on my very rural T-1...
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM, jim deleskie <deles...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to > the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to > homes, it's outdated before we even finish. > > > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<f...@cisco.com> wrote: > > If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband > implies > > fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy > - > > infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could > > pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deployment > of > > DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel a > leap > > forward, not just waste it. > > > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote: > > > >> I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based > >> on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any anyone > >> has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the > >> stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of > >> political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than > >> one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the > >> older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure > >> the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the gov > >> funding there competition. Just my 2 cents. > >> > >> -carlos > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Ted Fischer [mailto:t...@fred.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM > >> To: nanog@nanog.org > >> Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband > >> > >> > >> > >> Paul Timmins wrote: > >>> > >>> Fred Baker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be > >> > >>>>> going > >>>>> forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a > >>>>> number of > >>>>> years to come. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and > >> > >> broadband > >>>> > >>>> was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital > >>>> signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the > >> > >>>> term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included > >>>> virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM. > >>> > >>> of or relating to or being a communications network in which the > >>> bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals > >> > >> (as > >>> > >>> for voice or data or video) > >>> > >>> That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed > >>> Internet". > >>> > >>> > >> Seconded > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
