[116971] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Carlos Alcantar)
Fri Aug 28 01:00:57 2009
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:00:44 -0700
From: "Carlos Alcantar" <carlos@race.com>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
That's why I believe all the major lecs are refusing to submit for funds
due to all the red tape that comes with that money. Eg.
(Nondiscrimination and interconnection obligation) they are really
pushing network openness something I don't think the lecs want to do
with their fiber plant.
Carlos Alcantar
Race Telecommunications, Inc.
101 Haskins Way
South San Francisco, CA 94080
P: 650.649.3550 x143
F: 650.649.3551
-----Original Message-----
From: JC Dill [mailto:jcdill.lists@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:51 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> What Telecom companies have done is confused infrastructure and
> equipment. It would be stupid to plan on making a profit on your
> GSR over 30 years, after 10 it will be functionally obsolete. When
> it comes to equipment the idea of 1-3 year ROI's makes sense.
> However, when it comes to fiber or copper in the ground or on a
> pole it has a 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year life span. To require
> those assets to have a 1-3 year ROI is absurd.
What happens if we have improvements in data transmission systems such=20
that whatever we put in now is obsolete in 15 years?
What happens if we put in billions of dollars of fiber, only to have=20
fiber (and copper) obsolete as we roll out faster and faster wireless=20
solutions?
IMHO the biggest obstacle to defining broadband is figuring out how to=20
describe how it is used in a way that prevents an ILEC from installing=20
it so that only the ILEC can use it. If the customer doesn't have at=20
least 3 broadband choices, there's no real choice, and pricing will be=20
artificially high and service options will be stagnant and few. Look at
what happened to long distance rates and telephone services once Ma Bell
was broken up and businesses started competing for customers. I=20
remember when we paid more than $35 a month for long distance fees alone
(and about that much more for our basic service, including phone=20
"rental") when I was a teenager in the 1970s. Without competition, with
inflation, that same long distance bill would easily be over $100/month=20
today. Yest today, more than 30 years later you can get a cell phone=20
with unlimited minutes, unlimited domestic long distance, for $35/month=20
(e.g Metro PCS).
Let's not make this mistake again and let the ILECs use TARP funds to=20
build "broadband" to the curb/home that only they get to use to provide=20
internet services to the customers.
jc
