FCC Broadband Proposal: too little, too late, too timid
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Microsoft's dual-screenbooklet shows 'face' on web ¤ The Register
Next: NEWS: Android Market Push Threatens BlackBerry and iPhone
From: John Higdon on 19 Mar 2010 15:56 In article <4BA3D2B6.4060703(a)aa4re.ampr.org>, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > I was a CLEC so I am familiar with the landscape. We were going to do > data only so things like reciprocal payments aren't applicable. There > was little in the way as long as you didn't try to use the phone > company's resources. As an example, renting pole space from PG&E was > straight forward. My CLEC experience is on the telephone side. Nevertheless, even taking what you say at face value, starting a major company seems at least trivially more difficult than simply ordering the service, as those in other countries are able to do. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: Bob on 19 Mar 2010 16:01 On 19/03/2010 19:41, Roy wrote: > On 3/19/2010 12:03 PM, Bob wrote: >> On 18/03/2010 15:53, AES wrote: >>> In article<bPidncrTJ7axezzWnZ2dnUVZ8uadnZ2d(a)bt.com>, >>> Bob<bob(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> While this is probably common in the US I don't believe it would be >>>> allowed in countries who wish to push forward broadband expansion and >>>> capability. If a company is prepared to "light the fibre" they >>>> should be >>>> allowed to do so for a "reasonable" fee payable to the owner of the >>>> fibre. >>> >>> There are two sides to this problem: Situations where companies (or >>> other organizations) own dark fiber but aren't willing to lease it, but >>> also situations where dark fiber is available for lease but prospective >>> users aren't willing to lease, even for backhaul purposes. >>> >>> We have a neighborhood where AT&T could install Uverse with some local >>> trenching, then lease currently dark fiber owned by a municipal system >>> to complete the connection to their central facility several miles away. >>> >>> Sorry, says AT&T -- we won't go into any situation where we don't _own_ >>> the entire fiber setup, all the way from the customer to our central >>> facility. >>> >>> Hmmm -- wonder why that's their policy? >> Amsterdam's FTTH. >> "The second decision was to build an open-access, passive fiber plant >> that would support multiple ISPs in competition. In practice this >> translates to: >> >> * Unbundled dark fiber access lines which can be rented individually by >> an ISP who wants to serve that particular customer >> * ISPs can get access to APOPs to install their line cards and related >> equipment, patch in their customer access line, and connect to their own >> backhaul network" >> <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/how-amsterdam-was-wired-for-open-access-fiber.ars/> >> >> > > Check out > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world > > Personal income tax in the Netherlands is 10% higher. > "Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes commented: �Business activities of public authorities in the liberalised electronic communications sector have to be analysed carefully because of the potentially distortive effect of any state aid on the business of private operators, especially in metropolitan areas. However, in this particular case, our investigation found that the municipality of Amsterdam invests on market terms and that several private parties make significant investments in the project." Together with other shareholders, Amsterdam is investing in a company building a "fibre-to-the-home" broadband access network connecting 37,000 households in Amsterdam. The total equity investment in the project is �18 million. The Amsterdam municipality owns one third of the shares, two private investors, ING Real Estate and Reggefibre together another third, while five housing corporations own the remaining third. The wholesale operator of the new fibre network was selected through a tender procedure and will provide open, non-discriminatory access to retail operators which offer TV, broadband and telephony services." <http://www.citynet.nl/>
From: Char Jackson on 19 Mar 2010 18:12 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:14:31 -0700, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >In article <Xns9D4099418CB69thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131>, > DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote: > >> I get full saturation of 10 mbps d/l speeds from Time/Warner in >> a suburb of Buffalo, NY when using two d/l threads from >> Giganews. Using any more d/l threads is a waste, as more threads >> don't come down any faster. > >Aren't you fortunate? This is the Bay Area. Note the "ba" in the >newsgroup name. Some of us are reading this in alt.internet.wireless. >We don't have such service here. We don't have anything >close. Comcast advertises "15Mbps" connectivity, but what it really is >amounts to this: you get 15Mbps burst speed for the first five to ten >megabytes of a file download. After that, it drops to something like >3Mbps. You have to read the fine print to find that out. I'm also with Comcast, out in the Midwest. Around here they advertise 12Mbps and 16Mbps service tiers. I'm on the 12Mbps tier and get at least 18Mbps as my burst speed, after which it falls back to a very steady 12Mbps for as long as I want, any time of the day or evening. If they're advertising 15Mbps service out there, I'm surprised to hear that's your burst speed.
From: Char Jackson on 19 Mar 2010 18:14 On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:57:03 -0700, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: >And it isn't just speed. All of my telephone service is self-provided >VOIP, with IAX trunks to firms all over the country. With some notable >(expensive) exceptions, every provider has its own phone service >offering. They consider my activity to be competing with their own >service. I discovered that trying to get VOIP to work over Comcast was >nearly impossible (but theirs worked just fine...fancy that). I've been using Vonage over Comcast since late 2005, and I know of quite a few others who are using 3rd party VoIP services over Comcast without any issues. What were you doing that you found it nearly impossible to get VoIP to work? Feel free to drop into the .comcast newsgroup if you need help.
From: Char Jackson on 19 Mar 2010 18:16
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:55:35 -0700, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: >People always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit >as long as someone else pays for it. Or more correctly, people always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit as long as everyone else helps pay for it. |