[116973] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Fri Aug 28 07:12:34 2009
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
To: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A974AF6.6090006@bennett.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:11:39 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 27, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Richard Bennett wrote:
> The background issue is whether satellite-based systems at around
> 200 Kb/s and high latency can be defined as "broadband." Since
> everyone in America - including the Alaskans - has access to
> satellite services, defining that level of service as broadband
> makes the rest of the exercise academic: everyone is "served."
> There's no economic argument for government subsidies to multiple
> firms in a market, of course.
It seems to me that there has to be an element of what can be the
hardest thing to obtain in Government, judgement.
If I lived on Attu Island in the Aleutians, I would probably consider
a 200 Kb/s satellite link as broadband.
Where I live in Northern Virginia, I would not.
If there isn't some form of judgement about what is suitable and
possible in a given area, the results are not likely to be good.
Regards
Marshall
>
> It's more interesting considering that DirecTV is about to launch a
> new satellite with a couple orders of magnitude more capacity than
> the existing ones offer. I seem to recall their claiming that the
> service would then improved to some respectable number of megabits/
> sec. Satellite ISPs locate their ground stations in IXP-friendly
> locations, so there aren't any worries about backhaul or fiber
> access costs.
>
> But to your actual question, "under-served" is of course quite
> subjective and cost is clearly part of it.
>
> RB
>
> Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
>> As one of the workshops discussed, does the definition of
>> "underserved" and
>> "unserved" include the clause "for a reasonable price"?
>> If the price is unreasonable, do you think its government money
>> well-spent
>> to subsidize bringing a competitor to a market that couldn't make
>> it before?
>> Or are there perhaps other ways to deal with that pricing issue?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William Herrin [mailto:herrin-nanog@dirtside.com] Sent:
>> Wednesday, August 26, 2009 4:46 PM
>> To: Fred Baker
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Really where they need the swift kick in the tail is in the product
>> tying where you can't buy a high speed connection to J. Random ISP,
>> you can only buy a high speed connection to monopoly provider's
>> in-house ISP. Which means you can only get commodity service since
>> monopoly provider isn't in the business of providing low-dollar
>> custom
>> solutions. But it sounds like that's outside the scope of what
>> Congress has approved.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>
> --
> Richard Bennett
> Research Fellow
> Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
> Washington, DC
>
>
>
