[83362] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Way OT: RE: @Home's 119 domain names up for sale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Thu Aug 11 18:04:28 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:02:45 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Responding to all previous messages in this and the original thread:=0D
=0D
I note that "Way OT" was added to my original subject heading, and=0D
indeed for good cause because this discussion has veered off the course=0D
it could have taken in some ways, and that's okay, too.=0D
=0D
My associating the name "access@home" and the news release about former=0D
cable ISP @Home's sale of its domain names was more a matter of=0D
curiosity than it was actually suggesting there was a connection between=0D
the two. Although, the timing of both leaves me wondering, still,=0D
because up to this past week I had not seen the name @home, or even=0D
@work for that matter, used in almost five or six years, anywhere=0D
outside the context of discussions that were historical in nature.=0D
=0D
IMO, there's more to be considered here than whether this is just=0D
another example of pork distribution, which I suspect it is, in the=0D
accepted vernacular. Meaning, the spending of funds that result from=0D
marathon congressional horse trading and voting in order to get rid of=0D
funds that have been allocated for certain (in some cases, new) causes,=0D
lest those funds be lost forever in the spirit of "use it or lost it,"=0D
both now and forever more.=0D
=0D
Sometimes the ends to these rituals actually turn out to be noble, and=0D
sometimes they can be seen as a cause for outrage. In the case at hand=0D
I'm neither showering Rubin and Clinton with praise nor condemning their=0D
motivations in any way. Rather, I have serious questions as to what they=0D
are doing and how they have set out to accomplish their goals, and=0D
probably just as importantly, the fact that have they labeled their=0D
initiative as one that would bridge the digital divide.=0D
=0D
I see two issues I may want to pursue further --elsewhere of course,=0D
since this is indeed "Way OT" for this venue-- because they may prove=0D
detrimental to the cause of end-to-end networking, even if a relatively=0D
few more broadband lines do get built in the process. =0D
=0D
If you have been following the tightening noose around anything that=0D
smacks of being open lately, and view the timing of this action against=0D
the backdrop of recent FCC rulings, which are causing some ISPs to=0D
seriously begin wondering about their very survival and where they will=0D
get their next HSI lines from to provide to their customers, you must=0D
then conclude that the secondary beneficiaries of the initiative will at=0D
some point be incumbent service providers. For, who else will be left to=0D
provide fiber and cable services by the time these homes are built and=0D
ready to be inhabited, save for the small number of muninets that have=0D
already been built, and maybe to a similar degree, those of WISPs?=0D
=0D
When such an initiative is announced proclaiming that $1 Billion dollars=0D
will be spent on "bridging the digital divide," when in fact it is=0D
federal housing and urban development projects that happen to include=0D
the installation of residential inside wiring and an undisclosed plan=0D
for how "broadband" service providers would be paid, (without also=0D
mentioning that it will ensure that structural foundations, carpentry,=0D
plastering, plumbing, lighting and electrical work will also be=0D
covered), it gives cause to detractors of municipal networking to shoot=0D
down further, legitimate proposals that are relatively "undiluted" in=0D
comparative terms, efforts to promote Internet access. In effect, it=0D
gives the nay sayers of muninets something to point to when proclaiming=0D
"enough is enough", and that sufficient public funds have already been=0D
spent on such programs. =0D
=0D
As a consultant who at times receives feelers and RFIs from landlords of=0D
housing complexes, community leaders and apartment owners' boards of=0D
directors who are applying for local, state and federal development=0D
funding to upgrade their properties (which are sometimes nothing more=0D
than slums that they picked up for a song), I can state unequivocally=0D
that one of the first bullet points to appear in their executive=0D
summaries in order to receive meritorious recognition from those who=0D
hold the purse strings is the fact that their newly re-done units will=0D
be "Internet ready." Internet read is a euphemism that means that those =0D
units will be fully wired with Cat6 and coaxial cabling. It's gotten=0D
competitive to the point where some take it a step farther and enter=0D
into agreements with the incumbent telco and cable operators, or they go=0D
to both the telco and the National Cable Television Cooperative (NCTC)=0D
and create their own private cable companies (PCOs) to ensure that=0D
residents who desire triple play services can have it delivered to them=0D
at the stroke of a couple of keys and a credit check.=0D
=0D
Which leads me to my last point of skepticism in this post. Where and=0D
what percentage of the funds being allocated under this access@home=0D
initiative is the money going? I'd be surprised if the in-home wiring went=
=0D
above 1% of the total Billion cited. How much of it will be spent on=0D
recurring rental fees for broadband lines? Computer hardware and terminal=
=0D
gear? Will said funding lead to another round of abuses, such as the E-Rate=
=0D
abuses we've seen in the past? Will residents be given broadband access eve=
n =0D
if they don't have ample terminal gear to utilize it? Perhaps, even if they=
=0D
don't want or need it? After all, Luddites have rights, too. Comments here=
=0D
or via mail welcome.=0D
=0D
frank@fttx.org=0D
