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: Roy on 19 Mar 2010 14:51 On 3/19/2010 10:33 AM, alexd wrote: > On 18/03/10 15:53, Roy wrote: > > >> 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. > > Nuenen in the Netherlands has a pop den of 1742/sq mile and they've all > [90%] got fibre: > > http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Nuenen.html > > Eindhoven is next. I'm sure you God-fearing capitalists will abhor the > idea of a co-operative building a broadband network, but hey, your loss! > If you like cooperatives, start one. Anyone can become a CLEC and start digging up the streets. Nothing prevents this. Just don't use any tax dollars.
From: Roy on 19 Mar 2010 14:55 On 3/19/2010 11:28 AM, John Richards wrote: > "alexd"<troffasky(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ho0cho$1la$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> Nuenen in the Netherlands has a pop den of 1742/sq mile and they've all >> [90%] got fibre: >> >> http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/Nuenen.html >> >> Eindhoven is next. I'm sure you God-fearing capitalists will abhor the >> idea of a co-operative building a broadband network, but hey, your loss! > > Government interference through various subsidies hides the true cost of > providing such service. It boils down to a willingness by everyone to pay > higher taxes in order to get more cradle-to-grave services. Most Americans > are unwilling to pay higher taxes. > People always seem to want the government to provide some great benefit as long as someone else pays for it.
From: John Higdon on 19 Mar 2010 14:57 In article <99udnUXbAcHPWz7WnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > 60% of the population lives in one city which occupies 300 square miles > (think 30 by 10 miles). > > The country is basically bankrupt But they DO have Internet, unlike us. 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). We need Internet connectivity provided by companies that are not in the content or network services business. That's why I'm beginning to believe that a government solution may be the only effective answer. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: John Higdon on 19 Mar 2010 15:02 In article <_6idne3WvqASWj7WnZ2dnUVZ_oednZ2d(a)posted.southvalleyinternet>, Roy <aa4re(a)aa4re.ampr.org> wrote: > If you like cooperatives, start one. Anyone can become a CLEC and start > digging up the streets. Nothing prevents this. > > Just don't use any tax dollars. I suggest, if you want some very interesting reading, that you check into the lobbying efforts of ILECs to make sure that CLECs get the short end of all regulatory sticks. For instance, reciprocal payments, a policy designed by the RBOCs to financially burden upstart CLEC had the policy blow up in their faces and found the money flowing in the reverse direction. AT&T's answer? Just don't pay. AT&T is big enough that it seems to be able to thumb its nose at everyone. Yes, "anyone can become a CLEC" but what happens after that might be something you will want to investigate. -- John Higdon +1 408 ANdrews 6-4400 AT&T-Free At Last
From: Bob on 19 Mar 2010 15:03
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/> |