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 <o...@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. Owen 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.sny...@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 <marcelp...@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 > way.. > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars > > -Marcel > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:35 PM, <valdis.kletni...@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. >>
