On Mar 25, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort
monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
As I noted, yes, that's Verizontal, and they have
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort
monopolistic pricing from substandard services.
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of the LMI who enjoy leveraging it to extort
monopolistic pricing from
I've been a geek since I was a kid, and I'm now in my mid thirties. I
had worked at an ISP in Central NY for several years until my wife and
I decided to move south, to warmer weather. We ended up in South
Carolina where I found a job as the Senior Network Engineer for a
small datacenter
It seemes like it died on the vine:
http://www.free-times.com/index.php?cat=1992912064017974ShowArticle_ID=11011108100414529
--
Fred
On 27/03/2011, at 6:35 PM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of the
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of the LMI who enjoy
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 27, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Michael Painter wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 11:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As such, I'm sure that such a move would be vocally opposed by
the current owners of
- Original Message -
From: Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com
Maybe a 'turncoat' member of the Plutocracy, with multi-millions of $
laying around, can be persuaded to mount a
Presidential campaign and try the Change We Can Believe In schtick
again?...naaa.
Well, not a presidential
The principle that kept telegraph and telephone apart wasn't a
functional layering concept, it was a technology silos concept under
which all communication networks were assumed to be indistinguishable
from their one and only one application. If you read the Communications
Act of 1934, you'll
I take your point, the separation was of a different order. But a
separation, nonetheless. The motive is not so much different.
I think we can all accept that traditional telephone regulation is rapidly
losing its grip as the beast morphs. Now that applications outnumber
networks new problems
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.ukwrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks,
but principally a nice little 'hey
- Original Message -
From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com
I would say they provide network access only, not content. They would
be kept out of providing content and kept in the business of reliably
connecting content to consumer. That would be their focus.
We aren't even suggesting
I think the motive for the traditional separation actually was
completely different from the one for new separation. Silos had the
effect of limiting competition for specific services, while the avowed
goal of functional separation mandates is to increase competition.
Opportunities
Again excellent points. And I agree, in the current UK model there appears
very little opportunity for independent ISPs to offer any significantly
improved service over the incumbent's own, and thereby grab market share.
It's all a matter of what else one can package with it - effectively the
It's all a matter of what else one can package with it - effectively the
separation principle anyway.
effectively negating the separation principle anyway.
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC -
On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly with some layer 2
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal
networks, but principally a nice little 'hey check out this website'
(http://www.muninetworks.org/communitymap)
The whole
Paul,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks,
but principally a nice little
(with Internet access included) to below what the fiber loop itself was
priced at to us.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Martin Millnert [mailto:milln...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Paul Graydon
Cc: nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: Re: The growth of municipal broadband
In a message written on Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 08:31:21AM -1000, Paul Graydon
wrote:
I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision
towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of
the competing views I've heard so far are:
If you look at the
- Original Message -
From: Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.uk
I'm curious how the feeling is on NANOG about shifting such provision
towards municipal instead of corporations? I guess a rough summary of
the competing views I've heard so far are:
Oh, look. A hobby horse. My opinion
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial
entity to come in
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly with some layer 2 switching, but then allowed any commercial
entity to come in and offer layer 3
Jay,
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Having looked around the world I personally believe most communities
would be best served if the government provided layer-1 distribution,
possibly
It is only in very recent times that we have been able to overlay
Internet on both cable and television, and to have television
competition via satellite.
In the old days the phone company didn't provide content. You
called someone and the people at each end provided the content or the
data
aka the separation principle ( Tim Wu - the Master Switch)
What surprised me is that when I put his point to Richard R.John at the
Columbia Big media event back in Nov
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1563 - John totally agreed with it, citing the
precedent of the telegraph companies being locked out of
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:52 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
I don't. What happens when the government then decides what content
is and is not allowed to go over their network? If one had a site that
provided a view that the government didn't like, would they cut it off?
I
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011, Leo Bicknell wrote:
To that end, I think the US would be much better off with fiber to the
home on a single distribution infrastructure. That could be owned and
operated by the municipality (like the water system) or owned and
operated by a corporation granted an
30 matches
Mail list logo
