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.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?
