[116913] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roy)
Wed Aug 26 15:28:25 2009
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:27:51 -0700
From: Roy <r.engehausen@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <314cf0830908261214j9d8552bnc57dbad692750f81@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Joel Esler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Jack Bates<jbates@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 homes, it's outdated before we even finish.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 prefer fiber to the curb with copper to the home. Of
>> course, I haven't had a need for 100mb/s to the house which I can do on
>> copper, much less need for gigabit.
>>
>> Pro's for copper from curb:
>>
>> 1) power over copper for POTS
>> 2) Majority of cuts occur on customer drops and copper is more resilient to
>> splicing by any monkey.
>>
>
> I have fiber to the home. I can't imagine going back to "cable
> modems" now. eww..
>
>
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?
