RE: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband

["Carlos Alcantar" <carlos () race com>]

I think the big push to get the fcc to define broadband is highly based
on the rus/ntia setting definitions of what broadband is.  If any anyone
has been fallowing the rus/ntia they are the one handing out all the
stimulus infrastructure grant loan money.  So there are a lot of
political reasons to make the definition of broadband a bit slower than
one would think.  I guess it doesn't hurt that the larger lec's with the
older infrastructure are shelling out the money to lobby to make sure
the definition stays as low as can be.  They don't want to see the gov
funding there competition.  Just my 2 cents.

-carlos 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Fischer [mailto:ted () fred net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:50 AM
To: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband



Paul Timmins wrote:
> Fred Baker wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Luke Marrott wrote:
> >
> > > What are your thoughts on what the definition of Broadband should be

> > > going
> > > forward? I would assume this will be the standard definition for a 
> > > number of
> > > years to come.
> >
> >
> > Historically, narrowband was circuit switched (ISDN etc) and
broadband 
> > was packet switched. Narrowband was therefore tied to the digital 
> > signaling hierarchy and was in some way a multiple of 64 KBPS. As the

> > term was used then, broadband delivery options of course included 
> > virtual circuits bearing packets, like Frame Relay and ATM.
> of or relating to or being a communications network in which the 
> bandwidth can be divided and shared by multiple simultaneous signals
(as 
> for voice or data or video)
>
> That's my humble opinion. Let them use a new term, like "High Speed 
> Internet".
Seconded