On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first
refusal?
The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able
to refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades
from being done by a 3rd
On Aug 26, 2009, at 5:00 PM, Roy wrote:
I think it has become obvious that the correct definition of
broadband depends on the users location. A house in the boonies is
not going to get fiber, Perhaps the minimum acceptable bandwidth
should vary by area. A definition of area could be
ways to deal with that pricing issue?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com] Sent:
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
snip
Really where they need the swift
- Original Message
From: James Downs e...@egon.cc
Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were
allowed a sort of first refusal on projects. In areas where they had lots of
customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you
The problem is that if you break down the costs, you'll find out that
it almost doesn't matter what you put in as a cost of the total build;
the big costs are the engineering and the labor to install, not the
cost of the NID or anything like that. Nobody cares whether you
saved a million bucks
RFC for the Definition of Broadband
The problem is that if you break down the costs, you'll find out that
it almost doesn't matter what you put in as a cost of the total build;
the big costs are the engineering and the labor to install, not the
cost of the NID or anything like that. Nobody cares
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
The problem is that if you break down the costs, you'll find out that
it almost doesn't matter what you put in as a cost of the total build;
the big costs are the engineering and the labor to install, not the
cost of the NID or anything like that. Nobody cares whether
Perhaps the most practical service for both broadband and ALWAYS-on voice
service is one pair of copper (POTS) and one pair of fiber everything-else
per house.
Does anyone have a ballpark guess on the incremental cost of a strand-mile
(assuming the ditch is going to be dug and the cable put in
JC Dill wrote:
IMHO the biggest obstacle to defining broadband is figuring out how to
describe how it is used in a way that prevents an ILEC from installing
it so that only the ILEC can use it. If the customer doesn't have at
Oh, that's easy. If the government pays for 90% of the
On Aug 28, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
The problem is that if you break down the costs, you'll find out that
it almost doesn't matter what you put in as a cost of the total
build;
the big costs are the engineering and the labor to install, not the
cost of
Joe Greco wrote:
We've *already* subsidized the telcos $200 billion for a next generation
broadband-capable plant, that was supposed to be LEC-neutral...
Yeah, not every telco participated, though the RBOCs sure did.
So, we've *already* paid the plant cost, and we've gotten nothing much in
In a message written on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:19:50AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
Looking at just Oklahoma, I'm not sure ATT could get even 200kb to
every household for $200b.
For an interesting set of cost comparisons
In most locations every home has electrical service. What's the
cost
Oh, that's easy. If the government pays for 90% of the plant cost
There have been countless times where a local government wanted to
install the fiber *themselves*, only to have the ILEC file a lawsuit
and/or petition (bribe) the State Legislature to prevent installation.
Cheers,
Michael
Daniel Senie wrote:
Before you get too hung up on the emergency phone thing, take a hard
look at the present day. The telcos pushed SLC gear out everywhere.
I'm the network engineer for 12 ILECs. Over the last 10 years, I've seen
several major outages ( 48 hours) where voice has been
Michael Holstein wrote:
There have been countless times where a local government wanted to
install the fiber *themselves*, only to have the ILEC file a lawsuit
and/or petition (bribe) the State Legislature to prevent installation.
Out of curiousity, ILEC or RBOC? Have some pointers?
Jack
Once upon a time, Daniel Senie d...@senie.com said:
Before you get too hung up on the emergency phone thing, take a hard
look at the present day. The telcos pushed SLC gear out everywhere.
Those have batteries, but at least in some areas, no maintenance was
done, batteries died, and when
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In most locations every home has electrical service. What's the
cost per household?
$20/mo electric bill. That would so rock.
Most houses have a statem maintained road in front of them, what
is the cost per household?
Paid for by City/County or more commonly by the
In a message written on Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In most locations every home has electrical service. What's the
cost per household?
$20/mo electric bill. That would so rock.
There is the cost to put the line in to your house, and then
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In most areas of the country you can't get a permit to build a house
without electrical service (something solar and other off the grid people
are fighting). Since it is so much more cost effective to install with
new construction, why don't we have
On 28-Aug-2009, at 08:14, Peter Beckman wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In most areas of the country you can't get a permit to build a house
without electrical service (something solar and other off the grid
people
are fighting). Since it is so much more cost effective to
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Aug-2009, at 08:14, Peter Beckman wrote:
And where does that fiber go to? Home runs from a central point in the
development, so any provider can hook up to any house at the street?
Deregulation means those lines should be accessible to any company
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
If you want to make the emergency phone thing a part of the
discussion, then regulations need to exist AND be enforced, and
penalties assessed, for failure to provide such during power
outages. It's not happening today, so don't expect it
Once upon a time, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com said:
And where does that fiber go to? Home runs from a central point in the
development, so any provider can hook up to any house at the street?
Deregulation means those lines should be accessible to any company for a
fee. How do you
RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net wrote:
I've yet to hear an ILEC suggest that they not
have batteries in the NID to support the voice in power outages.
The battery in my FTTH NID is completely useless. It maintains the
voice side
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Carlos Alcantarcar...@race.com wrote:
The dropping of internet is done on purpose to preserve the battery for
the pots when ac power is lost. This is an actual setting in just about
all manufacturers of ftth equipment. You'll probably have a hard time
to get
I agree, while the majority of government and service providers have
the opinion that POTS is a lifeline service, and ethernet is not, I
disagree. I know the service provider I work for is starting to change
their views on this, but it will take time for the general populous of
One thing that I think service providers take into account is that while
many people still have phones that do not have their own power source,
battery backups for home computers aren't that common as a general rule.
There is no need to have battery backup for internet services if the
computer
On Aug 28, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Luke Marrott wrote:
One thing that I think service providers take into account is that
while
many people still have phones that do not have their own power source,
battery backups for home computers aren't that common as a general
rule.
There is no need to
William Herrin wrote:
You would suggest treating the Ethernet and POTS ports the same for
power backup purposes until the ethernet port drops its carrier for 60
seconds or so? Maybe do the same for the POTs ports wrt detecting
whether any phones are attached? Nah, that would make far too much
If all of the POTS attached phones on the emergency circuit are on-hook
and there are no incoming calls, then not much power should be required. If
a phone goes off-hook it should be much easier to detect. If the network
facing side is up it can power up the POTS circuit when an incoming call is
Walter Keen wrote:
I agree, while the majority of government and service providers have
the opinion that POTS is a lifeline service, and ethernet is not, I
disagree. I know the service provider I work for is starting to change
their views on this, but it will take time for the
: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:36
To: Luke Marrott luke.marr...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On Aug 28, 2009, at 3:17 PM, Luke Marrott wrote:
One thing that I think service providers take into account is that
while
many people
Maybe an NID with an integrated phone and a hand-crank-generator so you can
always crank it to make a call :)
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM, William Herrin
herrin-na...@dirtside.comwrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net wrote:
I've yet to hear an ILEC suggest
Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Maybe an NID with an integrated phone and a hand-crank-generator so you
can always crank it to make a call :)
Oh, man. If only I were old enough for that to be nostalgic. ;)
Jack
in an
urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even
with a dense customer base.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: James Downs [mailto:e...@egon.cc]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 1:07 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:51 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Leo Bicknell wrote:
What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
equipment. It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
GSR over 30 years, after 10
That deadline is for video.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: David Barak [mailto:thegame...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 8:25 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
- Original Message
From: James Downs e...@egon.cc
Except
competitive
differentiation.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmad...@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:31 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Once upon a time, Peter Beckman beck...@angryox.com said:
And where does that fiber go
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 23:16:17 Robert Enger - NANOG wrote:
As tedious as the downstream can be, engineering the upstream path of a
cable plant is worse. A lot of older systems were never designed for
upstream service. Even if the amps are retrofitted, the plant is just not
tight enough.
8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume
In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Alexander
Harrowell wrote:
An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average trench
mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre deployment
uneconomic. Now, this point can change:
This
On Aug 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100,
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the
average trench
mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre
Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you have to reach someone 20km from the CO, the cost of running
the ditch-wich down the road in a rural area is not the dominate
cost over the next 20 years. It's equipment. If the copper plant
takes 4 repeaters to do the job, that's 4 bits of equipment that
can fail,
Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org said:
When the original
rural telephone network was pushed ROI's of 50 years were talked about.
There's plenty of infrastructure built every day with ROI's of 20 years.
How much of that was built in the last 15 years though (where now it
needs to
In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:47:01AM -0400, Paul Timmins
wrote:
Seems like a good idea to the technical side of me, but the business
side sees a problem: that the employees like to eat in the 33 year span
wherein the company isn't making a dime on its customers.
The last
Leo Bicknell wrote:
So while mileage per subscriber increases, cost per mile dramatically
increases. The only advantage in an urban enviornment is that one
trench may serve 200 families in a building, where as a rural trench
may serve 20 familes.
Cost per subscriber is the only cost that
- Original Message -
From: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Once upon a time, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org said:
When the original
rural telephone network was pushed
In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:57:56AM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
oversimplified, in reality, many of the FTTH comments in this thread
imply bringing all customers back to the CO to keep active equipment out
of the plant. This will tend to imply large fiber bundles leaving the
Leo Bicknell wrote:
My perception is that the rural telecom market is fragmented by many
smaller players, which amplifies this problem.
I have 12 ILEC and 1 CLEC under my umbrella. I can guarantee that not a
single one is the same at the plant, equipment, or business level.
That being
On Thursday 27 August 2009 15:04:59 Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Alexander
Harrowell wrote:
An interesting question: as the population gets sparser, the average
trench mileage per subscriber increases. At some point this renders fibre
?
Or are there perhaps other ways to deal with that pricing issue?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-na...@dirtside.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
snip
Really where they need
Estimates to bring FTTH to all of America is in the $100 to $300B range.
So yes, the $7.2B is a drop in the bucket.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Sean Donelan [mailto:s...@donelan.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 9:53 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC
: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
snip
Really where they need the swift kick in the tail is in the product
tying where you can't buy a high speed connection to J. Random ISP,
you can only buy a high speed connection to monopoly provider's
in-house ISP. Which means you can only get
Leo Bicknell wrote:
What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
equipment. It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
GSR over 30 years, after 10 it will be functionally obsolete. When
it comes to equipment the idea of 1-3 year ROI's makes sense.
However, when it
Alcantar
Race Telecommunications, Inc.
101 Haskins Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P: 650.649.3550 x143
F: 650.649.3551
-Original Message-
From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:51 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years to come.
Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years to come.
Historically, narrowband was
my 2 cents.
-carlos
-Original Message-
From: Ted Fischer [mailto:t...@fred.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote
In the applications I wrote earlier this month for BIP (Rural Utilities
Services, USDA) and BTOP (NTIA, non-rural) infrastructure, for Maine's
2nd, I was keenly aware that broadband hasn't taken off as a pervasive,
if not universal service in rural areas of the US.
I don't think the speed
In the applications I wrote earlier this month for BIP (Rural Utilities
Services, USDA) and BTOP (NTIA, non-rural) infrastructure, for Maine's
2nd, I was keenly aware that broadband hasn't taken off as a pervasive,
if not universal service in rural areas of the US.
I don't think the speed
, and third is 50 or faster.
Richard Bennett
-Original Message-
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brun...@nic-naa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 10:00 AM
To: Luke Marrott
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
In the applications I wrote earlier
: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition
jim deleskie wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to
the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to
homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
I disagree. I much prefer fiber to the curb with copper to the home. Of
course, I haven't
Joel Esler wrote:
I have fiber to the home. I can't imagine going back to cable
modems now. eww..
I couldn't imagine leaving my VDSL2. I've seen broadband sent to the
house via fiber, coax, and copper. I've seen them all done well, and
I've seen them all done poorly. All are capable of
Joel Esler wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net wrote:
jim deleskie wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to
the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to
homes, it's outdated before we even
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Jack Batesjba...@brightok.net wrote:
jim deleskie wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to
the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to
homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
I disagree. I much
Roy wrote:
The problem that the FCC faces is making a realistic definition that can
apply to the whole US and not just cities. How does fiber (home or
curb) figure in the rural sections of the country?
It figures in nicely, thank you. Of course, our definition of curb might
be 1.5 miles
@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard
300W
Portland, OR 97201
o: 503-205-4467
f: 503-402-3277
-Original Message-
From: Dorn Hetzel [mailto:dhet...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
not to mention all the lightning-blasted-routers
On 26-Aug-2009, at 13:38, Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband
implies fiber to the home.
I'm sure I remember hearing from someone that the timelines for
disbursement of stimulus money were tight enough that many people
expected much of
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bakerf...@cisco.com wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a number
of years to come.
: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
In the applications I wrote earlier this month for BIP (Rural Utilities
Services, USDA) and BTOP (NTIA, non-rural) infrastructure, for Maine's 2nd,
I was keenly aware that broadband hasn't taken off as a pervasive
cents.
-carlos
-Original Message-
From: Ted Fischer [mailto:t...@fred.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Paul Timmins wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What
CON: active devices in the OSP.
On 8/26/2009 12:06 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
jim deleskie wrote:
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to
the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to
homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
I disagree. I
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On 26-Aug-2009, at 13:38, Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM
To: Fred Baker
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
On 26-Aug-2009, at 13:38, Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor
@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wed Aug 26 19:09:47 2009
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
I would argue that broadband is the upper X percentile of bandwidth
options available to residential users. For instance, something like
Verizon FiOS would be broadband while a 7 Mbps cable
: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
I would argue that broadband is the upper X percentile of bandwidth
options available to residential users. For instance, something like
Verizon FiOS would be broadband while a 7 Mbps cable wouldn't.
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Richard
@nanog.org
Sent: Wed Aug 26 19:09:47 2009
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
I would argue that broadband is the upper X percentile of bandwidth
options available to residential users. For instance, something like
Verizon FiOS would be broadband while a 7 Mbps cable wouldn't.
Jeff
In a message written on Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:17:02AM -0600, Luke Marrott
wrote:
I read an article on DSL Reports the other day (
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Please-Define-Broadband-104056), in
which the FCC has a document requesting feedback on the definition of
Broadband.
We are talking government handouts here and they never make sense
jim deleskie wrote:
Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal. I
Once upon a time, jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com said:
Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal.
Nobody is forcing anybody to live out
Wrong analogy, you have no way to use all 6 lanes @ once. The highway
is an aggregation device not access method. Unless you have 6 lanes
into your driveway :)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Chris Adamscmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com said:
Why
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband implies
fiber to the home. That would provide all sorts of stimuli to the economy -
infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I could
pretty quickly argue myself
heh. I've seen 3 different plans for FTTH in 3 different telco's;
different engineering firms. All 3 had active devices in the OSP.
Apparently they couldn't justify putting more fiber in all the way back
to the office.
Don't get me wrong. I've heard wonderful drawn out arguments concerning
Sean Donelan wrote:
Stimulus money per rural housing unit = $277.58 one-time
What definition of broadband can you achieve for that amount of money
in a rural build-out?
How much will fiber to the home cost in a rural area?
For 1-2k customers in small rural towns I've been hearing numbers
Jack Bates wrote:
Roy wrote:
The problem that the FCC faces is making a realistic definition that
can apply to the whole US and not just cities.
If I'm reading this question right, the issue is that Congress
appropriated some pork for rural broadband and now it's up to the FCC
to guess what
It's not a technical question, it's a political one, so feel free to
squelch this for off-topicness if you want.
Technically, broadband is faster than narrowband, and beyond that
it's fast enough for what you're trying to sell; tell me what you're
trying to sell and I'll tell you how fast a
On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be
going
forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a
number of
years to come.
Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and broadband
I read an article on DSL Reports the other day (
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Please-Define-Broadband-104056), in
which the FCC has a document requesting feedback on the definition of
Broadband.
What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be going
forward? I would
91 matches
Mail list logo
