nanog mailing list archives
Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 01:06:10 +0900
Owen DeLong wrote:
USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands.Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so. You seem somehow surprised by this.
No, not at all. So? Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers, (continued)
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Seth Mattinen (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Jared Mauch (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Sean Donelan (Jun 03)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Josh Luthman (Jun 05)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Joly MacFie (Jun 06)
- RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG (Jun 01)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Dorn Hetzel (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Owen DeLong via NANOG (Jun 02)
- Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Masataka Ohta (Jun 03)