Re: power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
--On August 7, 2005 3:01:25 PM -1000 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: don't know the 7901, but i can sure vouch for the 7900 which joel recommended to me. it has saved me from using remote hands to whack a wedged server so many times. Same thing. AP7901 is a NEMA L5-20P/5-20R and the AP7900 is a NEMA 5-15P/5-15R. 20A/15A respectively. APC doesn't sell any individually metered units. Baytech does (as pointed out elsewhere). I don't know about any others myself.
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
Gordon Cook asked: -- >>How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large?<< -- Assuming you're referring to a soup-to-nuts physical layer network, building one's own infrastructure isn't a panacea, and it is not even very often a doable proposition for organizations outside of the government and for companies outside of the Fortunes. Taken to the extreme, customer owned networks, if used as the sole source of transport, defies both the type of robustness that we seek - unless multiple networks per customer are built - and the very form of inter-working demanding of any-to-any end-to-end reach. So, unless it's a situation where great economies can be achieved in support of applications that are relatively local to (or resident solely within the borders of) an enterprise, maybe it's not the end all and be all that we sometimes make it out to be. For a University and Research Consortium, fine. For a forty-state branch banking network that must reach 42,347 end points, with most of those end points producing traffic for a single T1 or T3 line, or even a GbE line over an extended distance, it would appear on the surface "not," although each point solution requires its own evaluation. Volume discounts, the degree of diversity required and security issues all come into play, to name just three areas of concern. Rather, private builds are great for spot solutions, even very large ones, that are relatively constant between two or more points when those points are, likewise, constant and not constantly being relocated. But IMO they do little in the way of extending reach beyond the borders of the enterprise. For service providers, on the other hand, it's more of a financial consideration, assessing tradeoffs against perceived future pricing trends and traffic volumes. Again, to buy, rent or build is something that can only be determined at the time of need, and based on the particulars of the enterprise or service provider. That said, the situation I addressed initially highlights a case where the market had already begun taking care of some of the critical needs of diversity and redundancy for the universe of North American (or at least US) users, which are now about to be trashed in order to satisfy the goals of two corporate entities. Does this make any sense? Of course not. But viewed against the backdrop of this past week's FCC releases, the trend, despite how irrational and ludicrous it may appear, is ringing clear as day. And so it goes ... --- Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 347-526-6788 Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- On Mon Aug 8 16:17 , Gordon Cook sent: So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large? = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is New Wealth Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml = On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: > > All, > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially > interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be > to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport >
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 10:20:19PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly > given to whomever runs the wires. Maybe what we need is a certain class of > company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public > data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to > ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed > a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs > out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. We > could call them telcos, and... oh wait, nevermind. I believe you've mispronounced: municipalities. Oh, wait: Congress wants to outlaw *that*, too. Cheers, -- jr 'Second American Revolution?' a -- Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer+-Internetworking--+--+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | |'87 e24 St Petersburg FL USAhttp://bestpractices.wikicities.com+1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
The unfortunate part of all this is there is a demand for diversity, especially from the financial and government sectors. One of the big problems is that clients seldom know which providers or combinaiton of providers give them the most diversity. There are some intersting ways to claculate the optimal set of providers by price and diversity, but getting the data is quite difficult. Sometime large clients like the US government can leverage providers into divulging routing and right of ways, but is definately the exception. Even from our rough analyses there are several areas of heavily shared colocation. Sounds like the problem is getting worse and not better. - Original Message - From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, August 8, 2005 4:17 pm Subject: Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers > > So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at > > the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, > the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist > that > we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. > Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of > > economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the > switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of > failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco > router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever > failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. > Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. > > How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at > infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. > > How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand > > they better build their own infrastructure. > because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the > equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good > execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your > shareholder...never mind the public at large? > > > > = > The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ > 08618 USA > 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscription > info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where > is > New Wealth > Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml > = > > > > > On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: > > > > > All, > > > > Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially > > interesting for me, with my focus being on the future > implications of > > the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that > > I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI > will be > > to drastically reduce the number of options that network > planners in > > both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for > > redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport > > layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. > > > > These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of > > routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in > > order to > > allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to > kick in. > > In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that > > business > > continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to > mention> service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a > fare-thee- > > well, > > where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How > > long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What > will> become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to > either> business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered > due to > > concentration of powers? > > > > While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where > their> services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number > of > > places, it > > is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from > > disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is > > especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' > However,> the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or > even copper) loop > > providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy- > back> atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. > > > > But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by > Verizon,> SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are > still possible. > > > > Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the > number of > > physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once > > integration is completed users will find themselves riding over > > systems > > that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common >
Re: Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
So although we have the technology to build networks controlled at the edge and networks that are less subject to failure, the old business models that we cant seem to break out of insist that we remonopolize walled garden telephone monopolies. Why? Because we imagine them to have wondrous new capabilities of economy of scale. We concentrate the fiber and the switching centers into evermore centralized potential points of failure. We rob ourselves of redundancy. As with the cisco router monoculture in our backbones which god help us if it ever failed, we are now building a potential concentration of fiber. Higher and potentially more fragile than the twin towers. How sad. How can we gain some understanding of other ways to look at infrastructure? This is terribly short sighted. How many enterprises do you see Frank that may begin to understand they better build their own infrastructure. because perhaps placing all your infrastructures marbles in the equivalent of a new set of twin towers is not a good execution of your fiduciary responsibility to your shareholder...never mind the public at large? = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Where is New Wealth Created? Center or Edge? at: http://cookreport.com/14.07.shtml = On Aug 8, 2005, at 1:51 PM, Frank Coluccio wrote: All, Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in. In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee- well, where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to concentration of powers? While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However, the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon, SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible. Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher levels in the stack. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Eight or nine people I had talked to thought they had geographically distinct ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable when the second cut took it down hard. Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into their contracts? Or was this type of service "good enough"? --Michael Dillon
Of Fiber Cuts and RBOC Mega-mergers
All, Tracking the preceding discussion on fiber cuts has been especially interesting for me, with my focus being on the future implications of the pending RBOC mega-mergers now being finalized. The threat that I see resulting from the dual marriages of SBC/AT&T and VZ/MCI will be to drastically reduce the number of options that network planners in both enterprises and xSPs have at their disposal at this time for redundancy and diversity in the last mile access and metro transport layers. And higher than those, too, when integrations are completed. These mergers will result in the integration and optimization of routes and the closings of certain hubs and central offices in order to allow for the obligatory "synergies" and resulting savings to kick in. In the process of these efficiencies unfolding, I predict that business continuation planning and capacity planning processes, not to mention service ordering and engineering, will be disrupted to a fare-thee-well, where end users are concerned. The two question that I have are, How long will it take for those consolidations to kick in? and, What will become of the routes that are spun off or abandoned due to either business reasons surrounding synergies or court-ordered due to concentration of powers? While it's true that an enterprise or ISP cannot pin point where their services are routed, as was mentioned upstream in a number of places, it is at least possible to fairly accurately distinguish routes from disparate providers who are using different rights of way. This is especially true when those providers are 'facilities-based.' However, the same cannot be said for Type- 2 and -3 fiber (or even copper) loop providers who lease and resell fiber, such as Qwest riding piggy-back atop Above.net in an out-of-region metro offering. But thus far, for the builds that are owned and maintained by Verizon, SBC, MCI/MFS and AT&T/TCG, such differentiations are still possible. Not only will end users/secondary providers lose out on the number of physical route options that they have at their disposal, but once integration is completed users will find themselves riding over systems that are also managed and groomed in the upstream by a common set of NMS constructs, further reducing the level of robustness on yet higher levels in the stack. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- > Eight or nine people I had > talked to thought they had geographically distinct > ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable > when the second cut took it down hard. Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into their contracts? Or was this type of service "good enough"? --Michael Dillon
FCC Bans VoIP Services Blocking
Via Red Herring: [snip] While much of the reaction to Fridays U.S. Federal Communications Commission ruling has been focused on ISPs, a policy statement issued as part of the commissions deregulation of DSL services could add much-needed legal protection for VoIP carriers such as Vonage and Skype. The FCC issued a statement that it does not want the newly freed DSL providers and cable operators to use their total control of their networks to interfere with the access rights of direct competitors such as VoIP providers. A policy statement does not have the legal teeth of a rule, but it does put telecommunications carriers and cable operators on notice that there are still aspects of broadband services delivery in which the FCC reserves the right to meddle. "We need a watchful eye to ensure that network providers do not become Internet gatekeepers, with the ability to dictate who can use the Internet and for what purpose," said Michael J. Copps, one of two democrats on the FCC panel. "Consumers do not want to be told that they cannot use their DSL line for VoIP, for streaming video, to access a particular news web site, or to play on a particular companys game machine." [snip] http://www.redherring.com/article.aspx?a=13071 - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: /8 end user assignment?
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: > On 8/7/05 4:54 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote: > > > >> > >> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are > >> valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using > >> RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean > > > > and there was a mention at IETF by Alian of comcast (formerly of FT I > > thought?) that comcast was looking at an immediate ipv6 rollout: "because > > net 10 is not big enough"... 'immediate' on some scale not 'ten years out' > > (no timeframes mentioned, sorry) > > I suspect Comcast's mouth is bigger than its stomach, as it were. They have > a few other things they may want to tackle before rolling out v6. I don't > see a Comcact v6 rollout positively impacting their reliability. oh, you mean like how are they going to manage that device which is imbedded and doesn't know from v6 today? :) yea, I was just repeating a quote from the conference, nothing more. Funny though it was.
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
>>From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:22:23 -1000 >>To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure >>and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an >>economy of private ownership and government control? On 8/8/2005 8:23 AM, Scott McGrath wrote: > I believe it is called facism. > A big bald Italian mentioned something about trains running on time. Let's not confuse deregulation with the big 'F', which was state and ~trade union as much as ~business or anyone else. I mean, using the ultra-relativistic measure that is being loosely applied here, the previous existing regulations were also fascistic. We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcast of shrill, one-sided and uneducated diatribes -- Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/ Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: shiny side out one hopes? Seriously though, I'm not a telco/phone person, but I was once told that the phone switch equipment does the tap 'automagically' to special ds-1 facilities inn LEA-land... which means the cell phone can be wrapped in anything you'd like. If the calls get completed a copy is silently made to the right folks (not the nsa, they aren't LEA). At least from the experiences I've indirectly gained, if the call terminates on a switch with tap gear, it's similar to a SPAN port. Not only does the recipient's phone ring, but the magic phone rings and outputs the information from both sides of the call, while inputting nothing. The federal folks spent big money to have the switch manufacturers implement the software functionality, but the telcos do have to acquire the equipment (or rights to it via contract). It was funny watching Siemens try to tell our employee (former Siemens employee, and experienced in CALEA) that we'd have to buy the feature...it was less than an hour before they were calling back asking to be able to add the feature. :) pt
Re: /8 end user assignment?
On 8/7/05 4:54 PM, "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote: > >> >> I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are >> valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using >> RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean > > and there was a mention at IETF by Alian of comcast (formerly of FT I > thought?) that comcast was looking at an immediate ipv6 rollout: "because > net 10 is not big enough"... 'immediate' on some scale not 'ten years out' > (no timeframes mentioned, sorry) I suspect Comcast's mouth is bigger than its stomach, as it were. They have a few other things they may want to tackle before rolling out v6. I don't see a Comcact v6 rollout positively impacting their reliability. - Dan
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
I believe it is called facism. A big bald Italian mentioned something about trains running on time. Randy Bush wrote: From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 11:22:23 -1000 To: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? randy
Re: Fiber cut in SJ
On 8/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eight or nine people I had > > talked to thought they had geographically distinct > > ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable > > when the second cut took it down hard. > > Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy > seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into > their contracts? > > Or was this type of service "good enough"? What was the actual cost of this outage to operators in SLA credits? Perhaps it's just a function of economics: it's cheaper to plan for the 3 fiber cuts per 1000 route miles per year (or whatever the silly rate was I came across somewhere) and hand out credits than actually engineer physical redundancy. But seriously, has anyone quantified what this or similar cuts *actually cost*? aaron.glenn
Re: Fiber cut in SJ
> Eight or nine people I had > talked to thought they had geographically distinct > ring loops that turned out to be on that one cable > when the second cut took it down hard. Perhaps now people will begin to take physical separacy seriously and write grooming protocols and SLAs into their contracts? Or was this type of service "good enough"? --Michael Dillon
Re: Fiber cut in SJ
Maybe a market difference.. most maps I've obtained in the UK have been under NDA with established relationships already. Altho I suspect they're more concerned at showing me who's duct and fiber they're actually on.. Steve On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Joe McGuckin wrote: > > Stephen, > > The point I'm trying to make is that over classifying everything as 'secret' > or 'confidential' at this late date is useless. The horse is already out of > the barn. > > You can omit the site of a fiber backhoe accident from an email and say it's > due to security concerns, but I can call any telecom vendor who sells SONET > or metro ethernet services and get them to fax me a map of their network. At > the very minimum all I have to do is keep an eye out for USA markings on the > street. Or I could call USA and the next day people with paint cans would be > marking up the street, showing me exactly where to dig. > > If someone wants to cause trouble, the information they need is freely > available. The so-called security provisions most telecom companies use are > just enough to deter curious teen-agers. > > On 8/7/05 8:15 AM, "Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joe McGuckin wrote: > > > >> > >> On 8/5/05 8:12 PM, "George William Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> First, an electrical contractor backhoed a large fiber > >>> link in downtown San Jose (address deleted due to security > >>> concerns) this morning, causing moderate damage. > >> > >> That's just plain silly. As if we (or even your imagined 'terrorist') don't > >> know where the fiber runs around here. > > > > well.. theres lots of ducting going down streets but not that many folks > > know > > which of them are the major cable routes, i think keeping specific detail > > discrete is reasonable > > > > in a fire near where i am a couple years ago: > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/23/arson_suspected_in_manchester_cable/ > > > > it seemed a bit of a coincidence that both the active and protect paths of a > > major sdh route got hit in this attack and it took out a lot of long > > distance > > circuits > > > > Steve > > > >
Re: /8 end user assignment?
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 02:04:21PM -0700, Peter Boothe wrote: > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Sabri Berisha wrote: Hi Peter, > Everything can break. We want to know what will break less. > > http://soy.dyndns.org/~peter/projects/research/anycast/nanog/ > So, since Daniel Karrenberg showed that there was at least a 1% difference > between anycast and unicast reliability, and we showed that the median AS > switches root clusters every 3 hours, anycast is still a net win for the > median AS, even with TCP queries, and is probably a net win for everyone > except the people who have severe extant route flapping issues. So what I understand from your slides is basically that you acknowledge the fact that it is theoretically possible for the setup to cause temporary loss of connectivity (very minor packetloss) which may result in DNS queries to timeout, but that the impact of such an event has no real-life damage. I thought that it would be virtually impossible to get this actually working outside of a lab-environment due to continuous route-changes on the net. I stand corrected. -- Sabri Berisha, Juniper Certified - JNCIA #747 | Cisco Certified - CCNA email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| cell: +31 6 19890416 http://www.cluecentral.net/ | http://www.virt-ix.net/
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > The bottom line is that at a certain point there are a limited number > times you can put a wire to everyone's house into the ground. Cable modems > only make sense because the cable TV customer base to justify the build. > At some point in the future we might actually come up with a workable IP > over powerline technology, but again that will only make sense because of > the existing customer base that wants electricity. 802.16 is starting to sound promising -- the first certified "WiMAX" gear is starting to get rolled out right about now. Still a little bit of time away for general deployment, but certainly eliminates the wiring requirement. -- -- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 22:20 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: > > The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone > > company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the > > phone company. : ( > ... > Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly > given to whomever runs the wires. When the government proves unwilling to ensure reasonable access to the central office, why assume loosing this option benefits consumers? Consumers will be facing either a phone monopoly or a phone/cable duopoly. The US lags behind many other countries in broadband access already, where this change inhibits establishment of other carriers, even assuming alternative last-mile technologies could prove viable in the future. There is now no intermediate step into this arena, unless you consider dial-up an entry point. -Doug
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
From: "Joe McGuckin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a "fair" price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. Yes, it's called structural separation. Curious what others might think about this, assuming it's not snake-oil: http://www.shorecliffcommunications.com/magazine/news.asp?news=4404 http://www.xgtechnology.com/plots.htm Very low power and could be deployed right now in the unused adjacent-channel NTSC VHF spectrum. VHF (and/or UHF) would seem to solve many of the problems with "wireless" --Michael
