Having worked for rather large MSO in past I can tell you the issue with this that the cost man power and engineering time to go back and replace today with 3-5 forward technology is mostly like more then delta between copper and fiber today.
-jim On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Richard Bennett<rich...@bennett.com> wrote: > They have a saying in politics to the effect that "the perfect is the enemy > of the good." This is a pretty good illustration. We have the opportunity to > improve connectivity in rural America through the wise expenditure of > taxpayer funding, and it's best not to squander it by insisting on top-shelf > fiber or nothing at all. Let's push the fiber a little deeper, and bridge > the last 20,000 feet with something that won't be too expensive to replace > in 3-5 years. The budget ($7B) just isn't there to give every barn some nice > GigE fiber, even though it would make the cows happy. > > Richard Bennett > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 1:42 PM > To: Fred Baker > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: FCCs RFC for the Definition of Broadband > > > On 26-Aug-2009, at 13:38, Fred Baker wrote: > >> If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that broadband >> implies fiber to the home. > > I'm sure I remember hearing from someone that the timelines for disbursement > of stimulus money were tight enough that many people expected much of the > money to remain unspent. > > Does narrowing the scope of the funding to mandate fibre have the effect of > funding more and better infrastructure, or will it simply result in less > money being made available? Does it matter? > > > > >