That's not my understanding.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jay Ashworth [mailto:j...@baylink.com]
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
- Original Message -
> From: "Frank Bulk - iName.com&quo
- Original Message -
> From: "Frank Bulk - iName.com"
> Uhm, D-CATV is not IP just quite yet. Sometimes I wish that's the
> case, but it's still very much RF.
>
> There are several vendors that sell GPON solutions that support RF
> over fiber, and there's always IP TV.
Hmm. I had acqui
On 24/12/10 1:22 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
In an unrelated Michigan case, where a large business signed a written
contract (to expand) in exchange for tax abatement (but didn't expand),
the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the contract was mere "fluff and
hyperbole" required to obtain t
On 12/23/10 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's municipal,
it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
enable competition by making it practical for competitors
link.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 11:20 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
And since D-CATV is pretty much delivered over IP these days *anyway*,
it won't even be technically difficult for cable providers to hook up
customers over such a backbone.
- Original Message -
> From: "John Osmon"
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> [...]
> > The fact that I can get a wavelength to county dump in Eugene OR the
> > composting facility in Palo Alto doesn't really do anything for the
> > residential access market.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:17:46AM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[...]
> The fact that I can get a wavelength to county dump in Eugene OR the
> composting facility in Palo Alto doesn't really do anything for the
> residential access market.
Why not?
You have to start with connectivity *somewhere*.
On 12/23/10 9:19 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> And that's just another argument in favor of muni fiber -- since it's
> municipal,
> it will by definition serve every address, and since it's monopoly, it will
> enable competition by making it practical for competitors to start up, since
> they'll have
- Original Message -
> From: "Robert Bonomi"
> "Overbuild" is practical *ONLY* where: (a) the population density is
> high,lowering 'per customer' costs, and (b) service 'penetration' is high
> enough that the active subscriber base (as distinct from 'potential'
> subscribers) sufficient
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:14, Andrew Koch wrote:
> Those look more like power lines, with a substation in the background.
Helps to read the whole thing; you were talking about power lines. I
missed a few messages when this took a turn off from last mile
communications access.
Anyway, found on
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:03, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "JC Dill"
>
>> On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
>> > There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
>> > a
- Original Message -
> From: "JC Dill"
> On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
> > There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
> > all
> > the wires on the poles.
> >
> Can you provide a link
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell"
> After looking at many models I think Australia might be on to
> something. The model is that a quasi-government monopoly provides
> the last mile physical wire, but is unable to sell services on it.
> Basically they only provide UNE's. Then, a
On 12/20/2010 3:14 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadband at all.
Satellite, Cellular, and T-1, those are my options.
A mile away, there are choices, but not here. I am sure we aren't the only
neighborhood in this situatio
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:41:09PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Contrary to popular belief the average person tend to severely dislike
> all forms of road construction or having their yard repeatedly torn up.
>
> I know it's all happy fun times to say "let's have 10 water/electrical
> providers
On 12/21/2010 10:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The lesson here is that we need to decided what it is we are offering. As an
> ISP, we never offered different rates by distance or for different types of
> traffic. We did offer different rates for different sized pipes (aka volume).
> That is,
On 12/21/2010 10:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too
powerful a
lobbying force
Owen
Sad that we can admit this fact so freely.
On 12/20/2010 06:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I'm happy for you. The AT&T cable plant in my neighborhood is unable to
> sustain any better than 1.5mbps/384k on ADSL.
And mine (older Baltimore-area, ex-bell atlantic, now verizon) won't
sustain 384x384 at 15k ft, it works with about 10% packet loss
> >
> > Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far
> > too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best
> > thing for the consumers.
>
> Presumably for both the consumers *and* every company involved in
> network services who doesn't have the luck of a h
--"Congestion == oversubscribed. I would love to see a public posting or
notice or something on my ISP's website showing current flows and congestion
(the Cacti driven Network Weathermap is one such tool I've seen networks use;
one of my providers used to have one publicly available, and it was
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:42:09AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> > From: Leo Bicknell
> >
> > So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box,
>
> Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
> to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:26:48 am Rettke, Brian wrote:
> The problem is probably not the connection speed, but congestion on the CMTS.
> If the downstream is saturated (too many people watching Netflix on a node)
> the available shared bandwidth may not be enough to support your real-time
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:47:45PM -0500, David Sparro
wrote:
> I still think that the link shows that the factors are more economic
> than regulatory. As you point out, even where the regulatory obstacles
> have been overcome, it is not clear that Verizon ever actually did
On 12/20/2010 8:51 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.ht
- "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a
> prohibition of common ownership or management. Essentially,
> require that the stock be split and each current owner receives
> one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than 3%
> of th
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
"-Original Message-
From: Lamar Owen [mailto:lo...@pari.edu]
Interestingly enough, we've tried to do H.323 with some folks on a CMTS
connection, and have yet to succeed in smooth video. M
On 12/20/10 9:07 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
Do you have any cites saying that this was actually rolled out? Or did the
project get cut during the financial crisis, and never actually rolled out?
The issue I have with all these "cites" is that non
>
>
> The Comcast proposed business model is simply wrong, and unsustainable without
> essentially being a protection racket. Pay us more money or your service will
> be kneecapped
>
> We have laws against extortion.
We also have laws against warrantless wiretaps. Comcast seeks retroactive
On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>
> - "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>> Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
>> higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
>> plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell a
On 12/21/10 1:42 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_ as paying the FedEx
service/delivery fee. This is true if it is just the letter you're sending,
or if it is a sealed letter
Check out http://www.wispdirectory.com
Go to Contact Us and fill out the form. If you are only a mile away
from a WISP, there is a chance they will build out to you.
On 12/20/2010 6:14 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadba
I faced a similar challenge. If you have line of sight to something, you can do
fixed wireless for maybe 200-400 depending on the gear and frequencies
involved. Check out the ubnt 365 or m5 gear. Cheap as in disposable. Works
quite well. Then order a Comcast business connection there and call it
On Monday, December 20, 2010 06:36:03 pm you wrote:
> Those are all still sub-T1 on the uplink and well below normal CMTS service
> speeds. Low-end CMTS is around 15Mbps/7Mbps.
Yeah, at least with the T-1 you aren't oversubscribed. One company for whom I
consult was going to go from their T-1 to
- "Owen DeLong" wrote:
> Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
> higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
> plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the
> physical plant to higher level service provid
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:28:06 -0800
> From: Leo Bicknell
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd=
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> >
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Dec 20 15:01:07
> 2010
> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:00:22 -0800
> From: Leo Bicknell
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
>
> --fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7
> Content-Type
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> > When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over night
> > from across the country while letting you track it's progress?
>
> Trouble is, now
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote:
> The private sector (FedEx/UPS, etc...) brought us overnight delivery
> where USPS couldn't...
>
> ...and next-day air
> ...and freight delivery
> ...and package tracking that reports more than just "We don't know where it
> is/It's at the post off
On 2010-12-19 at 20:44:21 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
> et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
Like JC said, the Private Express statutes prevent you from bei
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
>>
>>
>> There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
>> (apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
>>
>> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_1
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/ptech/stories/DN-verizon_17bus.State.Edition1.f7543b.html
*
Tuesday, June 1
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
>> are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.
>
>> This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.
>
> FWIW, I
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer broadband at all.
Satellite, Cellular, and T-1, those are my options.
A mile away, there are choices, but not here. I am sure we aren't the only
neighborhood in this situation, even today.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 6:06
>
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.
We have 2 separate cable providers in our town. One of them is a division of
the local telephone company, but it is still CATV plant. The telco also
operates a FTTH service with IPTV video as well.
The result is t
On 12/20/2010 3:47 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Their copper in my area is nearly new, they have spent the last five
years or so refreshing and updating their copper outside plant.
This makes a huge difference. At a little over 18,000 feet, I had to
drop to 3m down .5 up to stabilize my DSL connect
On 12/20/2010 12:05 AM, JC Dill wrote:
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The laws of diminishing returns have already set the bar for the point
at which it's not profitable for a new company to enter the market and
try to compete. Right now the number is roughly 2, cable and dsl,
On Monday, December 20, 2010 03:44:33 pm Owen DeLong wrote:
> The vast majority of residences are more than 5,000 and a good majority
> are more than 10,000 cable feet from the CO.
> This means that average DSL speeds are sub-T1.
FWIW, I'm at 14-15 kilofeet from the CO, and am getting a solid 7Mb
On Dec 20, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
> So, we seem to circle the same points:
>
> 1. Who pays for the infrastructure to support the increased bandwidth
> requirements?
>
>Comcast and most ISPs want the content provider to do so, since they
> are collecting fees for the s
On 12/20/2010 12:46, JC Dill wrote:
>
> Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
> discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
> the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
> overbuilds are currently in place and serving custom
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:46:39PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
[snip]
> Your lmgtfy link's search finds 5 year old press releases about
> discussions to PLAN overbuilding in various locations. What I want are
> the Names of Specific Locations (in the SF Bay Area) where such
> overbuilds are currently
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> An assertion which was false; you can discuss the 'practicality' or
> whatever the experience has taught us as a nation, but to say "there
> are no" are "this datum generalizes for all" in most all of this
> and sist
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:37 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
>> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks st
On 20/12/10 12:23 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Amazing how that worked,
or didn't
even spelling "fransisco" (sic) wrong.
One letter off:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco
Did either of you actually *look* at the search result
On 20/12/10 12:00 PM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
the point of the bubble analogy had more to do with poor speculation driving
poor investments than it had to do with the nature of the build outs. I don't
really think it would be far-fetched to see it happen again in broadband
(perhaps in a bet
> The result is not competition, but a government sponsored duopoliy.
> This didn't bring more players to the table, it just let those already
> at the table offer a full set of overlapping services. Likely a good
> step, but not the same as getting new entrants into the market.
>
> --
>L
On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
> Amazing how that worked, even spelling "fransisco" (sic) wrong.
>
One letter off:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco
Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell said:
> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
> operators.
Huntsville, AL has Comcast and Knology (originally CableAlabama) cable
available at virtually every address (except for some apartment
complexes, which tend to only be wired for one
rvices
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy Bresley [mailto:b...@brezworks.com]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 12:52 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:46:10AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo
> wrote:
> > Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
> > the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
> >
On 20/12/2010, at 1:22 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>>
>> Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you
>> believe that player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of
>> players 1-5? What if player two has a high-
On 12/20/2010 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators. You see, these rules weren't changed to provide for a
second cable TV plant to be put in the ground, even in the FCC knew
that co
On 12/20/2010 11:44, JC Dill wrote:
> On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
>>> operators.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fib
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 02:31:09PM -0500, Joe Provo wrote:
> Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
> the Northeast corridor (Metro DC through Metro Boston). Parts of the
> SF Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit... google "cable overbuilder"
On 20/12/10 11:31 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
And yet, I don't know of any location in the US with two cable
operators.
[snip]
Everywhere that had enough paying-humans-per fiber-mile, so primarily
the Northeast corridor (Metro DC t
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 3:55 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen gerbil.net&
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze
> wrote:
>> Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines
>> to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competito
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 11:16:30AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[snip]
> So from about 1996 to 2000 we had competition. They then figured out
> how to rig the system so there is no effective competition, and so far
> the government has been A-Ok with that.
You also miss the part about the capital m
In a message written on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:20:37PM -0500, Steve Schultze
wrote:
> Congress went so far as to force ILECs (the incumbents) to lease their lines
> to competitors for awhile, with the idea that it would lead the competitors
> to build out their own "facilities-based" lines. Ev
On Monday, December 20, 2010 01:22:17 pm JC Dill wrote:
> But how do we GET there? I don't see a good path, as the ILECs who own
> the layer 1 infrastructure have already successfully lobbied for laws
> and policies that allow them to maintain their monopoly use of the layer
> 1 facilities to t
On Monday, December 20, 2010 12:20:37 pm Steve Schultze wrote:
> There are no government-enforced monopoly rights on cable or copper/fiber
> these days.
Unless you qualify as a 47USC153(37) 'Rural Telephone Company' and then there
are. Example being 253(f).
Until recently I was served by suc
On Dec 20, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet
>> services. Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and
>> the definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the
>> FCC, as I note
On 20/12/10 9:19 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Having lived through the telecom bubble (as many of us did) what makes you believe that
player 6 is going to know about the financial conditions of players 1-5? What if player
two has a high-profile chief scientist who, on a speaking circuit, star
>
> Cities currently do not recoup anything from telephone and internet services.
> Cities are capped at 5% of gross revenue from video services, and the
> definition of what they can recoup has been consistently narrowed by the FCC,
> as I noted here (in response to the first message in which
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
> between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
> that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
> company who wishes t
On Dec 20, 2010, at 7:02 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Dec 19 23:31:25
>> 2010
>> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
>> From: JC Dill
>> To: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - W
Evidently this list is interested in telecommunications law. I was worried it
would be considered OT, but since people are talking about it, here are some
clarifications...
On Dec 19, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 12/19/2010 20:09, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> They have been granted a mo
On 20/12/2010, at 12:25 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, JC Dill said:
>>> Why not open up the
>>> market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
>>> perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't b
On Dec 20, 2010, at 3:45 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltran/2009/07/24/Tina_modotti_wires447x625.jpg
>
> This is not the result of many different providers, it's the result of one
> provider stringing many lines to
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Dec 19 23:31:25
> 2010
> Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 21:30:45 -0800
> From: JC Dill
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On 12/20/2010 06:55 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
What no one has mentioned thus far is that CLECs really are able to
install their own facilities to homes and businesses if they decide
that is a good way to invest their finite resources.
Yes and no, we tried that way back when but found out that the
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> Department of Telecommunications (DoT), is the monopoly operator in India.
> That photo isn't due to a situation where there were numerous different
> providers, it's due to ONE provider with a monopoly, doing a half-assed job.
DoT is the regulat
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> Running a wire to everyone's house is a natural monopoly. It just
> doesn't make sense, financially or technically, to try and manage 50
> different companies all trying to install 50 different wires into every
> house just to have c
On Sunday 19 December 2010 22:25, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Look up pictures of New York City in the early days of electricty.
> > There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
> > the wires on the poles.
>
> Can you provide a link to a
On 19/12/10 10:55 PM, George Bonser wrote:
There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
all
the wires on the poles.
Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/beltr
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
>> any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
>> a two a month so th
> http://pinkbunnyears.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/telephone-pole.jpg
true beauty that only a perl code maintainer could fully appreciate
>
> >> There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of
> all
> >> the wires on the poles.
> > Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
>
> come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
C 1925 when each subscriber (or party line) had their own pair:
http://w
>> There were streets where you couldn't hardly see the sky because of all
>> the wires on the poles.
> Can you provide a link to a photo of this situation?
come to tokyo. or hcmc. or ... it's an art form.
> Yes... This is where the "market makes it best" philosophy fails. When
> the
> market has become entrenched in one way of doing things, a better way
> can face serious opposition because of this very fact.
The problem is that we don't *have* a market in many places. We have a
monopoly provider
> >
> You can send letters just as well as packages via the other carriers.
>
> The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx,
UPS,
> et. al could offer a $0.44 letter product if they wanted to.
There are certain legalities involved with first class mail that is not
the same w
On 19/12/10 8:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
You can send letters
Technically, this is illegal. You can send "documents" via FedEx and UPS.
just as well as packages via the other carriers.
The "USPS monopoly" on first class mail is absurd. In fact, FedEx, UPS,
et. al could offer a $0.44 letter
On 19/12/10 8:31 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JC Dill said:
Why not open up the
market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
50 - it simply won't make financial sense for additional p
On 19/12/10 6:25 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:12:02PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of th
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 05:58:26PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>> I dream of a day where we have municipal fiber to the home, leased to
>> any ISP who wants to show up at the local central office for a dollar
>> a two a month so the
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 19/12/10 5:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 08:20:49PM -0500, Bryan Fields wrote:
>>> The government granting a monopoly is the problem, and more lame
>>> government regulation is not the solution. Let everyone compet
On Dec 19, 2010, at 5:50 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> Personally I think the right answer is to enforce a legal separation
>> between the layer 1 and layer 3 infrastructure providers, and require
>> that the layer 1 network provide non-discriminatory access to any
>> company who wishes to provide
On 12/19/2010 06:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
they may be onto something. We don't have to w
>
> I believe that 'competition' in the last mile is a red herring that
> simply maintains the status quo (which for many broadband consumers is
> woefully inadequate). I agree with you that the USA has too many
> lobbyists to ever put such a proposal in place, the telecoms in a
large
> number of
Once upon a time, JC Dill said:
> Why not open up the
> market for telco wiring and just see what happens? There might be 5 or
> perhaps even 10 players who try to enter the market, but there won't be
> 50 - it simply won't make financial sense for additional players to try
> to enter the mar
one of the most interesting things about coming to Australia (after working in
the USA telecom industry for 20 years) was the opportunity to see such a
proposal (the NBN) put into practice. who knows if the NBN will be quite what
everyone hopes, but the premise is sound, the last mile is a natu
1 - 100 of 240 matches
Mail list logo
