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: AES on 18 Mar 2010 11:41 In article <7ZadnYpgfvHYJzzWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > 20% of the South Korean population lives in Seoul and most people in > live in high rise apartment buildings. > > Given the concentration of the population and the ease of servicing > multiple households with a single fiber to an apartment block, its no > wonder why there is such a difference in broadband coverage. Amen! You really have to see these tall, dense apartment blocks, running for mile after mile all through the country, to appreciate the population densities involved.
From: AES on 18 Mar 2010 11:44 In article <higgy-4B9801.23133217032010(a)news.announcetech.com>, John Higdon <higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: > Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous > city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here. Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and similar places.
From: Roy on 18 Mar 2010 11:53 On 3/18/2010 8:44 AM, AES wrote: > In article<higgy-4B9801.23133217032010(a)news.announcetech.com>, > John Higdon<higgy(a)kome.com> wrote: > >> Again, I live in the center of San Jose, the state's third most populous >> city (tenth in the nation). There's no density problem here. > > Sorry, it's absolutely nothing like the densities in South Korea and > similar places. Seoul has a density of 44,000 people per square mile, San Jose is less than 6,000. San Francisco is less than 7,000. NYC is around 27,000.
From: AES on 18 Mar 2010 11:53 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?
From: Bob on 18 Mar 2010 13:13
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? "III. Even if the Checklist Permitted the Commission To Require Access to Dark Fiber or Line Sharing, It Would Not Be in the Public Interest To Do So. AT&T also explained in its initial comments that, even if the Commission could read the competitive checklist to require access to dark fiber or line sharing, it should not do so. Mandatory unbundling provides a powerful disincentive for competitive LECs to invest in and deploy their own facilities, thereby undermining the goal of the Act to �encourage the innovation and investment that come from facilities-based competition.� <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020396197> |