[116919] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Hiers, David)
Wed Aug 26 16:30:54 2009
From: "Hiers, David" <David_Hiers@adp.com>
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:30:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <7db2dcf90908261316x1dc2edf2sbe2e51915b3e6d47@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
We're way past the time in which broadband meant more bits than baud, huh=
? Was it the other way around? I forget...
:)
Anyway:
"Broadband" could be defined as a duplex channel that is some positive mu=
ltiple of the BW needed to carry the lowest resolution, full-power, publi=
c broadcast TV channel currently permitted by FCC regulation.
As technology and regulation changes, we'd always have a definition of "b=
roadband" that is implementation independent, technology agnostic, and ea=
sy to grasp for most people.
David Hiers
CCIE (R/S, V), CISSP
ADP Dealer Services
2525 SW 1st Ave.
Suite 300W
Portland, OR 97201
o: 503-205-4467
f: 503-402-3277=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Dorn Hetzel [mailto:dhetzel@gmail.com]=20
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 that will be prevented b=
y
FTTH :) even with several layers of protection I still accumulate about =
one
dead interface of some sort each year on my very rural T-1...
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> 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 homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker<fred@cisco.com> 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 eco=
nomy
> -
> > infrastructure, equipment sales, jobs digging ditches, and so on. I c=
ould
> > pretty quickly argue myself into suggesting special favors for deploy=
ment
> of
> > DNSSEC, multicast, and IPv6. As in, use the stimulus money to propel =
a
> leap
> > forward, not just waste it.
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:44 AM, Carlos Alcantar wrote:
> >
> >> I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly ba=
sed
> >> on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is. If any an=
yone
> >> has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the
> >> stimulus infrastructure grant loan money. So there are a lot of
> >> political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower t=
han
> >> one would think. I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with=
the
> >> older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sur=
e
> >> the definition stays as low as can be. They don't want to see the g=
ov
> >> funding there competition. Just my 2 cents.
> >>
> >> -carlos
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted@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 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
> >>>>
> >>>> was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital
> >>>> signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As =
the
> >>
> >>>> term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included
> >>>> virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM.
> >>>
> >>> of or relating to or being a communications network in which the
> >>> bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signal=
s
> >>
> >> (as
> >>>
> >>> for voice or data or video)
> >>>
> >>> That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed
> >>> Internet".
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Seconded
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the add=
ressee and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. I=
f the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorize=
d representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that =
any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you ha=
ve received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by =
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments from your system.
