nanog mailing list archives
Re: It's way too quiet
From: Robert Cannon <rcannon101 () yahoo com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 12:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
The FCC figure was a benchmark for the purpose of conducting the Sec. 706 Reports. http://www.cybertelecom.org/706.htm It has no more significance than that. It was selected in part because it was believed that at that rate, video with sign language for the disabled would work. Other than creating a bench mark, which the FCC stated in might change in the future, it does not have further regulatory signficance. -B www.cybertelecom.org
Vincent Power <vince () penguin-power com> 07/05/01
02:05PM >>> In January 1999, the FCC defined broadband as a connection to an end-user with speeds greater than 200 kbps in both directions. -Vince On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Larry Diffey wrote:
Since it's so quiet in here, I want to stir things
up a little with an informal survey.
With all of this talk about broadband (mostly in
reference to cable modems and xDSL), consumers have been tricked into actually believing that if it's faster than a modem then it's broadband.
I have a number in my head as to what I consider
broadband. It's not an unreasonable number but it certainly does exceed what is available to the average consumer.
Oh wise nanogers, what speeds do we need to achieve
for the average consumer before we truly have broadband?
I will try and keep track of all the numbers that
you give you an average and I'll also give you the number I had in mind.
Regards, Larry Diffey **Incidentally, I am at this very moment wearing a
t-shirt that says "Will work for bandwidth".
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Current thread:
- It's way too quiet Larry Diffey (Jul 05)
- Re: It's way too quiet Vincent Power (Jul 05)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: It's way too quiet Robert Cannon (Jul 05)
- Re: It's way too quiet Christopher A. Woodfield (Jul 05)
- Re: It's way too quiet Miles Fidelman (Jul 05)