Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Lets put aside for a moment the conspiracy theories of government intervention and the telcos evil doing, IMHO there is a simple reason why I don't have fiber going to my house: geography economics. Japan: - area = 377,873 Km^2 - density = 337/Km^2 - pop = 127.5 mill USA:: - area = 9,826,630 Km^2 - density = 31/Km^2 - pop = 304.7 mill I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little bit north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a couple of hundred chickens. The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. My .02
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... TV On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Lets put aside for a moment the conspiracy theories of government intervention and the telcos evil doing, IMHO there is a simple reason why I don't have fiber going to my house: geography economics. Japan: - area = 377,873 Km^2 - density = 337/Km^2 - pop = 127.5 mill USA:: - area = 9,826,630 Km^2 - density = 31/Km^2 - pop = 304.7 mill I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little bit north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a couple of hundred chickens. The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. My .02
RE: [SPAM] Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Government intervention - see Federal-Aid Highway Act, Rural Electrification Act, etc. Ray -Original Message- From: Tom Vest [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 08:12 To: Jorge Amodio Cc: nanog@nanog.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [SPAM] Re: So why don't US citizens get this? Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... TV On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Lets put aside for a moment the conspiracy theories of government intervention and the telcos evil doing, IMHO there is a simple reason why I don't have fiber going to my house: geography economics. Japan: - area = 377,873 Km^2 - density = 337/Km^2 - pop = 127.5 mill USA:: - area = 9,826,630 Km^2 - density = 31/Km^2 - pop = 304.7 mill I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little bit north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a couple of hundred chickens. The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. My .02
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008, Jorge Amodio wrote: The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Well then, let's take Sweden: total: 449,964 sq km This is slightly larger than california. We're 9 million. I think at least 90% of Swedish households have access to at least ADSL 2M/1M, and 95% of households have access to 384kbit/s UMTS mobile wireless. ADSL 24M/1M is around USD50 per month, and should be available to a majority of households that live within technical range of COs. 100/10M ETTH is cheaper than ADSL 24M/1M and is available to somewhere around 10-15% of households. Wierdly 100/10M ETTH is more common in the smaller cities because of need of competitive advantage, so more money is spent my real estate owners there to make sure broadband is available. So, we're 9 million, Californa is what, 60million, on the same surface area. Is there any reason why california, in itself one of the largest economies in the world, seems to have problems delivering anything close to broadband to its inhabitants? So yes, the US must have structural problems here... -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. So then... Why do major US cities not have fiber to the home yet? Of course, here in the UK, FTTH won't go to London first: http://www.h2onetworksdarkfibre.com/news/?news=Bournemouth-becomes-the- UKs-first-Fibrecity http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-deti-150108-high-speed-broadband There are already plans afoot to roll out FTT? darn near everywhere here. http://www.ispreview.co.uk/news/EkEyEpAFykbCFYrArU.html FTTC is far more interesting that FTTH, because it is not just a technology buzzword driven idea, but one based on economics. It is cheaper to rollout a nice high bandwidth fiber link to most neighborhoods than to use that fat bundle of copper pairs. But, on the other hand, it is cheaper to leave that last quarter-mile intact and only build out fiber where new development is being done. So the real question that is much more interesting is as follows: Does the US lag the world in high-speed fiber to the cabinet (FTTC)? I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little bit north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a couple of hundred chickens. Don't let the copper thieves know where you live. They might show up one nice Sunday morning bright and early to clean out the county's copper wire. When I lived in British Columbia, Canada in teh 90's, I noticed that our incumbent telco was well ahead of the game. They were putting up fiber everywhere and then following up by cutting the fat copper cables into sections for recovery of the metal. They even ran fibre into remote valleys were there were only a few dozen families and it was probably economically worthwhile because they recovered a higher dollar value of copper from those remote locations. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics. --Michael Dillon
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Well then, let's take Sweden: total: 449,964 sq km This is slightly larger than california. We're 9 million. I think at least 90% of Swedish households have access to at least ADSL 2M/1M, and 95% of households have access to 384kbit/s UMTS mobile wireless. So, we're 9 million, Californa is what, 60million, on the same surface area. Is there any reason why california, in itself one of the largest economies in the world, seems to have problems delivering anything close to broadband to its inhabitants? So yes, the US must have structural problems here... Have you tried to use any distribution of people function on your numbers? Here in CZ we have more railroads than you in SE or California in US have. But I'm very far away to argue that Sweden or California have structural problems ... Regards Michal
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... Oh, but that's different. They were important.
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Jul 28, 2008, at 9:54 AM, John Levine wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... Oh, but that's different. They were important. Or, to be more specific, people everywhere need power and water and were willing to pay for them, so other people started companies to provide them everywhere. Roads are a little more complicated - the basic roads were there due to demand, but the highways got built because the Army argued that without highways they couldn't move troops and supplies to defend the country in case of an invasion. The same trick got science funded for a while... :-)
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Oh, but that's different. They were important. What is the key criterion here for identifying odious off topic correspondents and the public naming thereof?
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Actually ubiquitous power came from a government mandate and funding known as the Rural Electrification Act.The former Bell system left many areas of the country without telephone service and the same act set up the Rural Telco's to this day I am served by Kearsarge Telephone Co at home which serves a large chunk of Central NH. Ultimately the 'Market' always fails in corner cases and Government in the form of regulation and sometimes funding needs to step in as human nature never changes and greed still dominates in the end not so much that these areas are unprofitable to service it's just that with the same investment more money can be made elsewhere. From a accounting standpoint this is rational behavior from a societal standpoint this behavior is counterproductive. Government is not 'The Answer as many people feel but it does have a valuable role in balancing financial and societal needs. One of the societal needs today is reasonably priced high speed internet otherwise the US will fall behind in developing next generation network services as low speed DSL simply does not get the job done reasonably priced does not mean $100US for a 384/768 Business DSL which is the only thing I can run VPN over.This infrastructure is important today as electricity was in the 20's and 30's Laird Popkin wrote: On Jul 28, 2008, at 9:54 AM, John Levine wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... Oh, but that's different. They were important. Or, to be more specific, people everywhere need power and water and were willing to pay for them, so other people started companies to provide them everywhere. Roads are a little more complicated - the basic roads were there due to demand, but the highways got built because the Army argued that without highways they couldn't move troops and supplies to defend the country in case of an invasion. The same trick got science funded for a while... :-)
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FTTC is far more interesting that FTTH, because it is not just a technology buzzword driven idea, but one based on economics. It is cheaper to rollout a nice high bandwidth fiber link to most neighborhoods than to use that fat bundle of copper pairs. But, on the other hand, it is cheaper to leave that last quarter-mile intact and only build out fiber where new development is being done. It is cheaper to bore fiber and attach more remote systems than to use the already existing copper? I'm curious how you come up with those economics. (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm) So the real question that is much more interesting is as follows: Does the US lag the world in high-speed fiber to the cabinet (FTTC)? Good question. I'd say my little backwoods part of the world is roughly 10% FTTC, probably less. Don't let the copper thieves know where you live. They might show up one nice Sunday morning bright and early to clean out the county's copper wire. When I lived in British Columbia, Canada in teh 90's, I noticed that our incumbent telco was well ahead of the game. They were putting up fiber everywhere and then following up by cutting the fat copper cables into sections for recovery of the metal. They even ran fibre into remote valleys were there were only a few dozen families and it was probably economically worthwhile because they recovered a higher dollar value of copper from those remote locations. Yeah, mom was a little aggravated that she lost her connectivity in the valley out in El Salvador because one weekend thieves stole the entire stretch of copper down the mountain off the poles. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics. I have a high speed cable competitor here in town. They love sucking up the competitive profits in town. Of course, our plant footprint by law is about 20 times theirs. They weren't required to service pop and his cows 20 miles out where you'll never catch up on costs. Estimated population is roughly 5-6k. I've heard similar issues with CLEC's in small population areas. They suck up the profitable areas, and stay out of the areas where you will *never* recover your money. This was the whole point of regulation to begin with in my opinion; to ensure that every household had a phone line, even if it lost money. Of course, who cares about the rural areas. They always get the fallout from regulation changes made with the big cities in mind. If the want fiber to every home, they'll either have to up their incentives or remove the competition to average out profits. Forcing competition to the same requirements as the incumbent should effectively kill them off in the rural exchanges and keep them in the big cities. The last I checked, NTT didn't have to compete for their high profit areas while losing money on the fringes (I presume Japan still has SOME rural areas?). Jack
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
I think it is simply the matter of ROI - Return on Investment - issue. I'm still living in the area without city water, and when there is power outage, I don't have water at all since my water pump still needs electricity. But some rural area has FTTH because of government funding RUS (http://www.usda.gov/rus/) project. And most of urban area, people are still happy with cable modem service. People in Japan and South Korea are more of tendency to become early-adapters. So when they have new products, they wants to try it by majority. But in U.S., we are still cost oriented, and if we don't need it, we don't buy it. ^^ That's my 2 cents. Hyun Tom Vest wrote: Sort of makes one wonder how the US came to have ubiquitous roads, or power, or water distribution... TV On Jul 28, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: Lets put aside for a moment the conspiracy theories of government intervention and the telcos evil doing, IMHO there is a simple reason why I don't have fiber going to my house: geography economics. Japan: - area = 377,873 Km^2 - density = 337/Km^2 - pop = 127.5 mill USA:: - area = 9,826,630 Km^2 - density = 31/Km^2 - pop = 304.7 mill I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. I'd bet that if you deploy fiber in a given radious in a suburban area in Japan you may reach hundreds or thousands of potential customers, do the same a little bit north from where I live and you will reach a dozen guys, 50 cows and a couple of hundred chickens. The US is so spread out that anything to do with transportation, being people, packages, or ip packets becomes quite costly. Still I beleve is interesting to analyze why the US is lagging behind on high speed services. My .02
Off topic - RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
Grad Student thesis rsrch one page: comments welcome ;) however I have my good comments filter on... Is Internet Reachability a Net Neutrality Issue? CRTC Chairperson Konrad von Finckenstein introduced Net Neutrality in his speech to the 2007 Broadcasting Invitational Summit and again at the 2008 Canadian Telecom Summit mentioning that the CRTC's New Media Initiative will include striking a social, cultural and economic balance to deal with Internet traffic prioritization. Traffic prioritization or traffic shaping is a small part of the entire concept of a neutral network. The internet has no minimum standard of acceptable performance for reachability of websites and data. As an information tool it becomes useless without this reachability addressed as far as possible. The most famous example of non-neutrality in Canada occurred during the Telus labour dispute (2005). Telus blocked access to a pro-union site by blocking the server on which it was hosted. Researchers at Harvard, Cambridge and the University of Toronto (OpenNet Initiative) found that Teluss actions resulted in an additional 766 unrelated sites also being blocked for subscribers. Dealing with blocking access to servers and blocking access to other networks are very important aims of a neutral internet. Example: A York University professor was sitting at his desk at work in March 2008 trying to reach an internet website located somewhere in Europe. It was important to his research so when he repeatedly could not reach the site he contacted his IT department at the University. They were mystified why this would be the case. The Professor went home after work and found that he could reach the website from home consistently, for many days and was not ever able to reach the website from the University campus network.Yorks bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia, which was the bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to reach. However at home, the Professor purchased bandwidth from Rogers (and its upstream providers) who did not sever their peering relationship with Telia. Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and the loss of connectivity. Unreachability due to arbitrariness in network peering is unacceptable. Parts of the internet become unreachable for a great many reasons such as line failure, cable cuts, misconfiguration of equipment and human error but to add significantly and deliberately to this unreachability due to arbitrariness in peering is unacceptable. End users whether award winning scholars, backyard astronomers or teenage scientists require as much reachability of data as the technology will allow. Political and economic persuasions should not be permitted to condition and alter the media or the content. Recommendation: Bandwidth purchase agreements (Service Level Agreements) that specify bandwidth, uptime and cost actually define connectivity thus they should contain a list of peers or network interconnections that will be maintained for the length of the agreement. Prepared by Nancy Paterson, York University July 23, 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS anyone willing to proof read a few technical pages of thesis paper? pls contact off list
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
It is cheaper to bore fiber and attach more remote systems than to use the already existing copper? I'm curious how you come up with those economics. (seriously, that wasn't sarcasm) First point is that you can sell the copper. Second is that you can reduce the number of local loop faults because the local loop is digital to the fiber cabinets. Local loop faults seem to be a major cause of overtime work in telcos. The cause of the faults is numerous including stretched copper, cracked insulation, moisture in the bundles, rodents, etc. Have you ever seen the huge bundles of copper wires that come into a telephone exchange? Once you have seen this in person and you understand the complexity of cutting those loops, and splicing, and recutting, and resplicing over many decades, then you will see where it might be cheaper overall to just replace them with OC48 over fiber. Or GigE or whatever, but make it digital and make it go on glass fiber cables. Yeah, mom was a little aggravated that she lost her connectivity in the valley out in El Salvador because one weekend thieves stole the entire stretch of copper down the mountain off the poles. Here in London they even steel bronze statues or brass railings in a park to get the copper content. Here is one account of the risks that copper thieves will go to. Don't read it if you have a queasy stomach. Analysis paralysis perhaps? AKA bipartisan politics. This was the whole point of regulation to begin with in my opinion; to ensure that every household had a phone line, even if it lost money. And the day will dawn when governments realize that the technology used to supply service is irrelevant, but everyone needs to have a reliable connection to the Internet. They may even mandate that every connection has to include an emergency voice service that is the old -48VDC POTS in disguise. Today the USA and the rest of the world is still in the pioneering experimental stage of figuring out what works. If Russia forges ahead with FTTH broadband everywhere, just watch how quickly you see bipartisan agreement in the USA. Of course, who cares about the rural areas. Do you eat? Anyway there is history in the USA of treating rural areas as a apecial case such as the Rural Electrification programs. The rural people didn't need electricity and could have gotten on just fine without it as they had for centuries before. Even industrialised countries like Russia and Ukraine still have rural areas where there is essentially no electricity, or very occasional and unreliable electricity. Different countries choose different priorities, but over time there seems to be general convergence of all countries onto a basic set of modern services that they want to deliver to their entire population. Some things can be done with competitive markets, and other things cannot. It's all about figuring out which measures to apply to which problems, not about taking a political ideology like communism and forcing it upon every aspect of people's lives. That has been proven to not work and people who call for free-market everything need to realize that they are trodding the same wellworn path that communists travelled in the last century. Furthermore, most Americans alive today do not really remember what a free market was like. When was the last time you travelled in an unregulated cab, ate in an unregulated restaurant, etc.? Even this mailing list is attempting to impose constraints on the free market of network design and operations. Best practices become embodied in vendor products and even people who don't necessarily want to follow the best practices for good technical reasons, can't find the equipment to do it or the people who will build it differently. --Michael Dillon
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
As if you believe in network externalities (each additional network node increases the value of the entire network) and I certainly do, then there is reason to believe a purely private market will not serve enough customers. :) Each customer decides to join the network based on their private calculus of cost and benefit and disregards the benefit everyone else gains from their joining the network. Similarly, I pay for my mother's phone so I can reach her. :) Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic 13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
Her cell phone. Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic 13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein. -Original Message- From: Rod Beck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon 7/28/2008 5:29 PM To: Scott McGrath; Laird Popkin Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: So why don't US citizens get this? As if you believe in network externalities (each additional network node increases the value of the entire network) and I certainly do, then there is reason to believe a purely private market will not serve enough customers. :) Each customer decides to join the network based on their private calculus of cost and benefit and disregards the benefit everyone else gains from their joining the network. Similarly, I pay for my mother's phone so I can reach her. :) Roderick S. Beck Director of European Sales Hibernia Atlantic 13-15, rue Sedaine, 75011 Paris http://www.hiberniaatlantic.com Wireless: 1-212-444-8829. French Wireless: 33-6-14-33-48-97. AOL Messenger: GlobalBandwidth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' Albert Einstein.
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments. Problem is not laying fiber between poles, the last mile has been always the show killer. 200 local loops + terminating equipment surely will cost more than 1 local loop + terminating equipment. My .02
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Jean-François Mezei wrote: Jorge Amodio wrote: I belive there are just few major cities in the US that have a comparable or higher concentration of people like other large cities around the world. Does population density still REALLY matter ? Considering that fibre optic cables have a far longer reach than copper, and considering that the utility poles already exist in less densely populated areas, it would seem to me that fibre would be a superior alternative to copper, especially when you consider the costs of setting up remotes all over the place for copper. And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments. The way I view it, telco accountants have build *excuses* to not lay fibre instead of finding ways to justify laying it. That brings up another instance of CLEC to ILEC inequality. We have repeatedly tried to ascertain 'pole rights' from local/regional power companies but have been brushed off with agreements of 15-20k per pole! We would love to run fiber to our rural remotes and offer triple play services, but at 15k per pole! Currently, the best we can do for very remote locations is to mux a couple of T1's together or if we're lucky get a couple of unbundled loops and run Ethernet over copper. I wanted to chime in earlier when people where mentioning what they paid for what kind of connectivity and this seems as apropos time as any. We charge a FLAT $70 bux for 3m/1m and unlimited local/LD to these remote locations, if served from a CO, that price drops to $50 US and the speed climbs to whatever the line is capable of. The company is based in the southwest US. I suppose I could de-politicize this comment by posing the question, has anybody had luck attaining pole rights in such an instance for a reasonable rate? -chris
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 11:11:39PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it. I gather that the company providing FIOS is an unreg subsidiary, and a CLEC, and therefore doesn't have to *sell* you transport, voice or data. How they get to be in the wire centers, I'm not clear, though i understand they are. I *do* have the FIOS Tampa and National NOC phone numbers, if anyone needs them; the St Pete Times did a piece on them when they first rolled out, and were indelicate enough to use a high-res pic of their warroom as the lede, with the numbers clearly readable. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
That's right on the moneynow, when significant portions of the plant needs to be replaced, fiber is almost the de facto approach. Frank -Original Message- From: Josh Cheney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 12:39 PM To: Jean-François Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: So why don't US citizens get this? Jean-François Mezei wrote: Does population density still REALLY matter ? Considering that fibre optic cables have a far longer reach than copper, and considering that the utility poles already exist in less densely populated areas, it would seem to me that fibre would be a superior alternative to copper, especially when you consider the costs of setting up remotes all over the place for copper. And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments. My understanding is that for a rural area, in a completely new rollout or a forklift upgrade, fiber is cheaper than copper. However, because the majority of the copper that is currently deployed is still highly serviceable, it is very difficult to justify tearing out perfectly good copper and laying out fiber in it's place. -- Josh Cheney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.joshcheney.com
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Frank Bulk wrote: That's right on the moneynow, when significant portions of the plant needs to be replaced, fiber is almost the de facto approach. Almost? What else is there? I mean besides copper/coax of course? Why would you want to continue upgrading an outside plant based on that? I mean unless of course your a US telco. :) -- Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059 http://charlesnw.blogspot.com CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:48:49PM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote: And I would reckon that laying fibre along existing utility poles to reach 200 homes would cost far less than laying fibre in a concrete high rise appartment building to reach 200 appartments. Problem is not laying fiber between poles, the last mile has been always the show killer. 200 local loops + terminating equipment surely will cost more than 1 local loop + terminating equipment. As it happens, we're looking into replacing about 30 HDSL4 T-1s with fiber. The copper loop charge, per T1, is about $180 a month or so. The fiber loop charge, *per T1* is about $150. Plus a $30 a month cross-connect charge. I love tariffs, don't you? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
Re: Off topic - RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recommendation: Bandwidth purchase agreements (Service Level Agreements) that specify bandwidth, uptime and cost actually define connectivity thus they should contain a list of peers or network interconnections that will be maintained for the length of the agreement. Prepared by Nancy Paterson, York University July 23, 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many buyers out there have SLAs which cover inter-provider/domain connectivity? How many sellers are willing to guarantee this level of connectivity to their customers with a SLA? How many peering contracts are worth the paper they're printed on, and have teeth when subjected to attorney review, and none of the usual 30-90 day unilateral severability nonsense? Therein lies your problem. Drive Slow, Paul Wall
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Jul 27, 2008, at 5:37 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Yes, I do. The free market is a system where corporations like to take the easiest road to do the least work to maximize profits, while everyone else is doing the same thing. Recognizing your biases here, I think an economist might define it a little differently. For example, see http://www.investorwords.com/2086/free_market.html . The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market.
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Fred Baker wrote: The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market. I have always understood the issue to be the presence or absence of unfettered competition. Competition is good. It's lack is bad. Government can be one source of fettering. So can monopolization. So can post-purchase lock-in. Anything that restricts the ability of the consumer to make on-going choices for alternate sources of products and services. Which is to say, anything that alters the incentives of companies to provide better products at better prices. We ought to stop saying 'free' and instead say 'competitive'. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Mark Foster wrote: deadfake.com offer anonymised email services with no signup. Does this not immediately raise questions in itself? Or am I just unnaturally suspicious of such services? Have to admitt as soon as I see traffic relayed by a system such as that, I stop putting much stock in its content... shoot the messenger, eh? the fact is that real 100m/100m is about USD30/mo in japan. in the states, i pay about USD90 for 256k/768k. as far as the internet is concerned, the united states is a third world country. randy
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Dave Crocker wrote: I have always understood the issue to be the presence or absence of unfettered competition. Competition is good. It's lack is bad. The problem is that it is rather hard to enable full competitive environment in the last mile. No city, no citizen wants to have 300 wires running along the poles on streets. In fact, a properly managed monopoly (with rules to grant access to the last mile) can probably financially justify deploying fibre to the home far more easily than in a competitive environment. The big problem in north america is whoever decided to make ADSL work on old copper. Had ADSL never materialised, the telcos would have been forced to put fibre to the homes. But now that they have invested in the ADSL quagmire, it becomes much harder for them to justify fibre to the home. But a CEO with vision would get the telco to stop deploying remotes everywhere and leverage the fibre's ability to reach longer distances and cover neighbourhoods with far fewer remote/nodes. The problem is that CEOs are not hired for their vision, they are hired for their ability to please wall street casino analysts (who in term please shareholders with their articles in the various wall street casino newspapers/magazines). Competition only works when the goal is to please customers. It does not work when the goal is to screw customers as much as they will tolerate. (Consider mobile telephony in north america, especially Rogers/Bell/Telus in canada).
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
bRandy Bush/b lt;a href=mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=So%20why%20don%27t%20US%20citizens%20get%20this%3Famp;In-Reply-To=Pine.LNX.4.62.0807271144360.11610%40maverick.blakjak.net; title=So why don't US citizens get this?[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt; at iSun Jul 27 08:18:20 UTC 2008 said:/i/abrgt; shoot the messenger, eh?brpregt; the fact is that real 100m/100m is about USD30/mo in japan. in thebrgt; states, i pay about USD90 for 256k/768k. as far as the internet isbrgt; concerned, the united states is a third world country.brgt;brgt; randybrbrThis is exactly my point, why is it that the US is so behind???br/prebr -- No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On 2008/07/27 10:18 AM Randy Bush wrote: the fact is that real 100m/100m is about USD30/mo in japan. in the states, i pay about USD90 for 256k/768k. as far as the internet is concerned, the united states is a third world country. I currently pay (converted from ZAR to USD) $40/m for 192k/384k DSL. That gives me a pair to the exchange DSLAM, no internet. On top of that, I pay $10/m for each GB used on that line. My average spend on plain old POTS DSL is $100/m. If the US is the third world of telecoms, S.A. is the 50th world. Please /do/ moan about government incompetence, drug induced legislation and failure for the stupidest people on this earth to understand free market economy (and where it works). Please /don't/ pretend to be in the worst position out there, because I have some gruelling stories to tell... :)
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Hi All, we are rendering similar (but up to 1Gbps to home) service. This is also very popular in Russia. This type of network is much cheaper to build and much cheaper in maintain than ADSL or CaTV (DOCSIS). The problem is... USERS!!! A regular user just don't understand the difference. That's why first houses covered is where no coverage of any type of Internet connection at all. But if there is something - people continue to use DSLs, even if not happy with it. I hear from my colleges about a pilot-project in New York, but it is about 1000 users. If somebody here interesting in this technology and business, please, contact me off-list. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?br -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market. Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better. Ah. I didn't realize that I just didn't understand the situation as well as you. Thanks for setting me straight. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Abraham Lincoln As I said, I mostly agree with you in your analysis. The main thing I differ on is your definition. The market is not free and just calling it free doesn't change that. This will be my last post along this thread, due to thread drift. Me too. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:29:38 -0500 (CDT) Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The key thing in that definition is the lack of government intervention in its various forms. That's D'Arcy's point. Where there is government subsidy, regulation, or other intervention, it cannot be described as a free market. Actually, it could... but you have to understand the situation better. Ah. I didn't realize that I just didn't understand the situation as well as you. Thanks for setting me straight. If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Abraham Lincoln You don';t watch television much do you. Especially the news. We are well past 1984. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actioInfallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
We do its called FIOS. - Original Message - From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this? https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?br -- No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com
RE: So why don't US citizens get this?
bGuy_Shields at Stream.Com lt;/ba href=mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=So%20why%20don%27t%20US%20citizens%20get%20this%3Famp;In-Reply-To=; title=So why don't US citizens get this?[EMAIL PROTECTED]/abgt; said at /biSat Jul 26 23:00:47 UTC 2008brgt; /iWe do its called FIOS.brbrAFAIK they don't offer affordable 100mbps symmetric connections though via their fiber to house service... ;)br -- No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: bGuy_Shields at Stream.Com lt;/ba href=mailto:nanog%40nanog.org?Subject=So%20why%20don%27t%20US%20citizens%20get%20this%3Famp;In-Reply-To=; title=So why don't US citizens get this?[EMAIL PROTECTED]/abgt; said at /biSat Jul 26 23:00:47 UTC 2008brgt; /iWe do its called FIOS.brbrAFAIK they don't offer affordable 100mbps symmetric connections though via their fiber to house service... ;)br -- No, this email's not real, it's http://deadfake.com What in the world does that say? -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actioInfallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
well... hard to tell... Secure Connection Failed asahi-net.jp uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate is not trusted. that said, can I get FIOS w/o any other Verizon crap? I just want the fiber transport to an exchange... want my own ISP/peering, not theirs. They wont sell it. --bill On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 06:00:47PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We do its called FIOS. - Original Message - From: natalidel Sent: 07/26/2008 11:56 PM CET To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So why don't US citizens get this? https://asahi-net.jp/en/service/ftth.html -- hmm?br
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: What in the world does that say? Not to add too much noise to the list, but that MUA (x-mailer: DeadFake Mailer) is sending HTML that's base64 encoded... but with a text/plain content type. Oops? -- Kameron
Re: So why don't US citizens get this?
Hi, So far with 2 test messages, neither have been delivered. It also does claim it leaves your IP in the email so there IS some tracking approximately where it came from. I can't verify, of course, since 2 messages have gone into never never land for me. Doesn't look like it ever got delivered. Maybe one of my RBL's are stopping it. Tuc deadfake.com offer anonymised email services with no signup. Does this not immediately raise questions in itself? Or am I just unnaturally suspicious of such services? Have to admitt as soon as I see traffic relayed by a system such as that, I stop putting much stock in its content... Mark. On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Kameron Gasso wrote: Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: What in the world does that say? Not to add too much noise to the list, but that MUA (x-mailer: DeadFake Mailer) is sending HTML that's base64 encoded... but with a text/plain content type. Oops? -- Kameron
Deja Vu [Was: Re: So why don't US citizens get this?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Joe Greco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The telcos might disagree... it's a free market... they're free to market whatever they want. And they do. Rightfully so, I suppose. I think the issue that was being discussed -- which I shouldn't probably compel -- is the fact that questionable decisions have been in the U.S. regulatory process which favor monopoly interests. Free markets have a tendency to become un-free when monopolistic positioning becomes entrenched -- and even preferred by government bureaucrats. But allow to me apologize now for my non-technical response, although I feel compelled myself to point out the obvious. We just don't have the competitive choices we should, as consumers. What is old, seems to be new again, unfortunately. $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIjABTq1pz9mNUZTMRAjy2AKCW+hRG+VKsTLqVdv48MyecZZClmwCeNe7I BSq9TB1EtsQqJwgl5/LaRag= =8Ovk -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
