[117214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Downs)
Sat Sep 5 13:04:25 2009
From: James Downs <egon@egon.cc>
To: <frnkblk@iname.com>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAABc8+EoOM6BSJestNuwCT6XAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 10:02:21 -0700
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 28, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first
> refusal?
The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able
to refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades
from being done by a 3rd party. However, I have seen reports that in
a few areas, municipalities are starting to win lawsuits against them
(in apparently the long appeals process).
> urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify
> it even
> with a dense customer base.
That might apply to fiber, but even speed upgrades (Newer DSL
services) are apparently subject to the same refusal process, but the
rules are different across the country, too.
-j
