If the FCC truly wanted to fix this they would make rural support portable. If you provided the benchmark performance, you get the welfare check. The whole problem would be fixed overnight.
From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:29 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This article *facepalm* OK, until crappy DSL is upgraded to at least 10/1. But actually, in a lot of our area, DSL is unavailable (more than 3 miles from CO) or 3M/384K or lower. Frontier is not deploying remote DLSAMs, and is also “out of ports” in some towns. AT&T is also refusing to sell DSL to new customers, even existing landline voice customers, even houses where the previous owner had DSL. I think it’s different motivations. Frontier is broke. AT&T doesn’t want to sell copper based services. But a lot of our service area is beyond DSL reach, given that Frontier doesn’t want to invest in some fiber fed remote DSLAMs. But also I think WISPA’s filing was in response to something about subsidies for RoR carriers, also the point is that setting the benchmark at 25/3 doesn’t ipso facto get people 25/3. It may actually raise the bar to the point where even with subsidies, nobody wants to build the infrastructure, while 10/1 might have been achievable with a modest subsidy, via fixed wireless, or a remote DSLAM. Also judging by the recent CAF II auction, they may actually require rigorous constant performance monitoring. Without that, the traditional big telco approach would be to just lie about your speeds. And maybe do a demo of one customer 50 feet from a test van getting 25/3. From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This article *facepalm* How many areas truly are not served at all? Crappy DSL is available almost everywhere. From: Ken Hohhof Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 8:56 AM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This article *facepalm* WISPA’s position was that money should not be spent upgrading people from 10/1 to 25/3 until the people with nothing at least get 10/1. The article mis-represents this as the evil, greedy ISPs saying poor people shouldn’t get anything more than 10/1. From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:46 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This article *facepalm* I didn’t think the article was terrible but the headline did not match the content. I learned a new term of art yesterday “outrage curator”. Many clickbait and news outlets craft articles to maximize outrage. Be nice when this phase of American History has passed... I think... it’s gotta blow over... right? From: Steve Jones Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 8:40 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] This article *facepalm* I hate articles I cant read beyond the headline because of the vomit in my mouth On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 10:09 AM Jason McKemie <[email protected]> wrote: I kind of hate to distribute it, but it is just so bad that I feel I have to: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/11/poor_slower_internet/ -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
