I don’t know that it’s a false dilemma - I mentioned it with the caveat that it’s probably not politically possible even if it was advisable (and I don’t believe it is).
The obvious model is the electric distribution deregulation that has occurred in a lot of states where the distribution and generation components are separate entities. Mark > On Feb 1, 2017, at 5:22 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > Mark, > > I believe you have presented a false dilemma. Those are not the only options. > > The best option would be to have an open access dark fiber network with cost > plus pricing, averaged over the whole network. > > With this model it doesn't matter much who does the building, who does the > financing or for that matter even who does the owning. > > This would also keep true competition alive and flourishing on the level that > matters, the offering of Internet and other services. > > It is inefficient to build competing infrastructures and temporary solutions. > > Now, I don't expect the rational thing to be done, but, hey, a man can dream. > > Jared > > > > > On Wednesday, February 01, 2017 Mark Radabaugh wrote: > > Adam, > > > So 2 questions for you (or anyone)… > > Do you think the government should fund private companies to build fiber > everywhere because 10Mb won’t be sufficient for the “need”, not the “want”. > Do we as a country spend a lot of public money to effectively create a > monopoly fiber carrier in every region? Or is it better to make sure > everyone has access to 10Mb and allow the free market to compete for the > “want”? To me the former creates a monopoly with government money with all > of it’s inefficiencies and long term harm to the consumer. The latter > takes longer but has a better chance of staying competitive. > > The ‘monopoly last mile provider’ model is probably not going to happen in > the US. While it could I don’t see any current political chance of that > happening. > > Given the major providers as well as the wanna-be’s like Google are giving up > on FTTH builds in favor of fiber -> 5G builds now, why should the FCC still > be pushing the FTTX only model? > > Given 5G is little more than hype at this point I have my doubts that the > model will actually work, but that’s another story. > > I’m asking these questions in the WISPA FCC chair capacity because I want to > understand what our policy should be, keeping in mind that government funding > schemes are rarely friendly to small companies and often result in > significant harm. > > As Amplex - I’m building fiber to towers, FTTH on the routes to the towers > and in wooded areas I can’t otherwise serve, and creating micro pops along > the way on the fiber routes. Personally I think that is the winning answer > for the future - but that’s just me. > > Mark > > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Adam Moffett > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > I agree with you on the need. In my mind, nobody "needs" more than 1meg. > 10meg generally makes them happy and not have too fuss about how they're > using it (for now). They "want" 25-100 meg for all their entertainment. > > Put another way: I might only "need" 10 amps of electrical capacity as long > as I'm careful about how I'm using it, but my 200 amp service makes me a > happy and contented consumer for the foreseeable future. > > Regardless of what anyone "needs", fiber is going to end up the standard > delivery mechanism for data because it will meet the need of today and the > need of next year and the next 50 years. If you build anything else, then in > the long run you'll have people still clamoring for improvement and it will > end up being replaced. > > There's nothing wrong with meeting the immediate need with wireless, and you > can absolutely make money doing it, but the long term and permanent answer is > going to be fiber. So if you want to stay relevant in the future you'll be > looking at how to get into that game whether it's with private funding or > government subsidy. > > This is a WISP, we're a WISPA member, and I want WISP's to succeed.....but > facts is facts. > > -Adam > > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Mark Radabaugh" <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> > To: [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 2/1/2017 2:11:22 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these > > > Chuck, > > Explain why we would have to bury fiber for that customer when the current > standard for ‘served’ for Internet is 10Mbps which is easily done with > wireless, and “Advanced Broadband” is 25/3Mb. I still think there is a > very valid argument that 10Mbps is more than sufficient for the services that > the government should be guaranteeing (phone, telemedicine, education). 25/3 > is more about entertainment than anything else and I don’t see where this is > a taxpayer obligation. I want Broadway shows in my little town too - but I > don’t expect the government to fund them. > > The major carriers are moving away from landlines as fast as they can and are > really looking to replace all last mile with wireless if they can make it > work (and they think they can). I don’t think it will be long until getting > traditional landline service in the city is no longer an option - why would > we still be forcing this in rural areas? > > The other issue is the cash cow that funded USF for years (intrastate phone > revenue) is rapidly diminishing and will finish it's spiral of death soon > unless the contribution base is expanded to broadband. > > Mark > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > 419-261-5996[tel:419-261-5996] > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Chuck McCown > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > Depends on what you call rural. I have served areas with perhaps 1 house > every 5 miles. You are not going to find a wisp willing to build out in > areas like that. I plowed 20 miles of fiber for one single house. > > > > From: That One Guy /sarcasm > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:34 AM > To: [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these > > > If WISPA does their job well, small business can more effectively service the > rural markets than the telcos, for alot less money > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Jason McKemie > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> > wrote:You think? It seems like the Republicans are in the pocket of big > telco, so I wouldn't hold my breath. > > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017, That One Guy /sarcasm > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > i think that bank account may be closed very soon > > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Mark Radabaugh > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > Lipstick on a pig. The copper in still rotting in the ground and the only > approved Centurylink fix appears to be the upgrade from black to orange trash > bags. Except when those are out of stock. > > Centurylink will be back to the FCC shortly crying about how the need more > support money to fix the plant. The only question is if they do it this year > or next. > > > > Mark Radabaugh > WISPA FCC Committee Chair > [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > 419-261-5996[tel:419-261-5996] > > > > On Feb 1, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Mike Hammett > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > > They couldn't before either, but they didn't give a shit. > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/] > [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL] > Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/] > [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix] > The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/] > [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg] > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > From: "Darin Steffl" <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> > To: [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 11:49:50 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these > > These should all be fiber fed. Any new DSLAM's with CAF funding are very > likely fiber fed. They just can't support the bandwidth requirements with > only bonded T1's anymore. > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Josh Reynolds > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > One would suspect a calix e7-2 or e7-20 (2Tbps backplane, 100Gbps link to > each line card). I don't think you can even feed those by anything short of > at least a gig ethernet circuit. I never really tried on any of the E7-2s > I've used in the past though :) > > > On Jan 31, 2017 11:29 PM, "Forrest Christian (List Account)" > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > Out of curiosity, do you know how are they feeding these shelves? > I know that in at least one case a couple of years ago, Qwest was feeding an > entire neighborhood on I think 4 T1's. > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Darin Steffl > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > Exactly. Calix VDSL2 Remote DSLAM. These are the result of CAF funding from > Govt. to provide minimum 10/1 Mbps speeds to the census blocks they took > funding for. > > If Centurylink had crappy or no DSL in these areas before, expect them to be > able to offer somewhat functional to excellent DSL speeds to customers in > range of these remote DSLAMs. For really close customers, they may see up to > 40/1 Mbps speeds. > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:54 PM, Carl Peterson > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]>wrote: > As someone already said, its clearly and E3. > https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-e5-dsl.html[https://www.calix.com/systems/e-series/e3-e5-dsl.html] > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 4:18 PM, George Skorup > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]>wrote:Regen would > be my guess. > > On 1/31/2017 2:45 PM, Tim Reichhart wrote:it got fiber ran into it for remote > dslam to provide customers vdsl2 along that route. > > Tim > > -----Original Message-----From: "Carl Peterson" > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> > To: [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] > Date: 01/31/17 03:28 PM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] CenturyLink installing these > > Calix. I'd guess G.Fast > > Sent from my iPhone > On Jan 31, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Josh Corson > <[email protected][mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > > Does anyone know what these are? They are popping up on fairly rural > areas of our coverage areas and on the state highways. > > Thanks<mime-attachment.txt> > <image1.JPG> > -- > > Carl Peterson > PORT NETWORKS > 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553 > Baltimore, MD 21202 > (410) 637-3707[tel:(410) 637-3707] > -- > > Darin Steffl > Minnesota WiFi > www.mnwifi.com[http://www.mnwifi.com/] > 507-634-WiFi > [http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi] Like us on > Facebook[http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi] > > > -- > > Forrest Christian CEO, PacketFlux Technologies, Inc. > Tel: 406-449-3345[tel:406-449-3345] | Address: 3577 Countryside Road, Helena, > MT [email protected][mailto:[email protected]] | > http://www.packetflux.com[http://www.packetflux.com/] > [http://www.linkedin.com/in/fwchristian] [http://facebook.com/packetflux] > [http://twitter.com/@packetflux] > > -- > > Darin Steffl > Minnesota WiFi > www.mnwifi.com[http://www.mnwifi.com/] > 507-634-WiFi > [http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi] Like us on > Facebook[http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi] > > > -- > > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. > -- > > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >
