---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wallace W. Carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: [uug] iProvo To: "James F. Carroll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James: I do not know. The Wikipedia iProvo <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IProvo> article was more informative, but did not mention MStar's promised offer to out bid Broadweave. Why is the city so anxious to sell it? Why are uploads slowed down so much. Maybe poor technical or administrative management. On 6/4/2008 8:25 AM, James F. Carroll wrote: Dad, As Todd asks below, "Where do you stand on this issue?" James ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Todd Millecam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:20 AM Subject: [uug] iProvo To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just thought I'd let you know--I went to the Provo city council meeting last night to discuss the sale of iProvo to Broadweave Networks. There's been some recent financial trouble with the iProvo network--and they're looking to sell it for roughly $4,000,000. As you might know--there has been some very different opinions as to the mayor's quick decision to sell the fiber optic lines into the private sector. Most people who are politically active are in favor of this sale, but not in the way it's being sold. Oh, and to let you know--Mstar told city council that they would make them a better offer than Broadweave. I stood before them right before the Mstar representative and said, "Whether you keep the network or not, I believe that the financial troubles of the iProvo network are caused by a failure of ISPs to give a minimum level of service to their customers. There have been times where they will throttle a person's uplink speed down to 200kbps on certain protocols--when a fiber optic line is capable of so much more. Broadweave has not earned my trust--and I have no reason to subscribe to lines owned by them. I have other friends who have moved to coaxial cable because of this failure to provide adequate service. "There needs to be a legal minimum requirement set on bandwidth, both uplink and downlink for all ports, packets, and protocols." The council asked me what I thought a reasonable minimum bandwidth would be. I told them a 2mbps is more than a reasonable minimum on a fiber optic line--but that it would have to increase over time as the technologies improve. I also told them that it is not unreasonable to provide, at this time, 50mbps over a fiber optic line. I got a bit of an applause--which was quickly silenced because it was against city-council procedures. I would've said more about how distributed networking is the way of the future, but each person was limited to 3 minutes. Where do you stand on this issue? -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
