And 640k is enough. When I started in this game 15 or so yrs back the 'backbone' in Canada was a 56k figure 8 loop, running frame relay. We moved to T1 a yr or so later. Buy the time I left Canada to work for internetMCI a yr later, we're @ DS3's in Canada. Technology evolves quickly. Just because some place does not have 'high-speed' internet now, doesn't mean they will not in 5 yrs. I sure we could site here and site all the places in the world they will not due to politics/poverty/all other bad things in the world, but its not reason to limit the goals of people that are part of these projects.
-jim On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Deepak Jain<dee...@ai.net> 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.l...@blacklotus.net> > To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@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<rich...@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:jab...@hopcount.ca] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM >> To: Fred Baker >> Cc: nanog@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? >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team > jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net > Black Lotus Communications of The IRC Company, Inc. > > Platinum sponsor of HostingCon 2010. Come to Austin, TX on July 19 - > 21 to find out how to "protect your booty." > >
