[119787] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: FTTH Active vs Passive
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Wed Dec 2 02:33:03 2009
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:32:11 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Will Clayton <w.d.clayton@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <69069bc20912012258q77a6c144g92fedd4e2ce00570@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
> physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
> is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
> The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
> how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success
> and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
> drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
> hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
> arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will
> enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
> a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
> infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
> own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
> importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
> priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
> understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit
> so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.
life can be simple. i moved to a first world country, japan. $35/mo
for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a
couple of laptops.
hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail.
randy
