Request for input on the definition of Broadband

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Please also copy me for IP  djf
Begin forwarded message:

From: Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr () yahoo com>
Date: September 1, 2009 9:12:42 PM EDT
To: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, dave () farber net
Cc: Rob Curtis <robert.curtis () fcc gov>, Tom Brown <thomas.brown () fcc gov>
Subject: Re: [IP] Request for input on the definition of Broadband

IPers:

Please do send us your ideas.

We need an grammer that can be used to definie "broadband",
a very ill defined term.
[and not the technical definition on an "broad analog channel :>) ]

The definition needs to recognize that the capabilities must evolve  
with time.
And pramatically the key focus of the defintional effort is "high  
performance access to
the Internet", where the Internet is the IP based network of networks.

Email on IP is welcome as are public filings in the FCC proceeding  
09-47.

Stagg Newman
Chief Technologist, FCC National Broadband Plan team
stagg.newman () fcc gov

--- On Tue, 9/1/09, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [IP] Request for input on the definition of Broadband
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Date: Tuesday, September 1, 2009, 4:43 PM



Begin forwarded message:

From: Chuck Brownstein <charles.brownstein () verizon net>
Date: September 1, 2009 1:56:05 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Request for input on the definition of Broadband
Reply-To: charles.brownstein () verizon net

Dave,

Long ago in a land far a way, a band of techies looking to understand  
where their world was going and figure out how to get there took a  
look at similar issues.  (Ok, ok, some of them just wanted to simplify  
marketing thier boxes and bandwidth, but their musings might yet be  
amusing).

If you go to: <http://www.xiwt.org/documents/documents.html> and look  
at Class Profiles for the Current and Emerging NII; February 1997, you  
can see what sort of notions were floated in antiquity. Adjust orders  
of magnitude to translate to today's technologies, and watch out for  
network anti-nutrality potholes

Chuck



On Sep 1, 2009, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
The other day I had a conversation with a friend at the Federal
Communications Commission. He asked an interesting question. When
people talk about broadband they tend to talk about numbers bits per
second except for.

Something seems wrong with this approach. First it is very sensitive
to the advancement of technology any number will be obsolete in a few
years. Second of all, and maybe most important it ignores other issues
that would make any speed usable in many applications -- -- like
latency chair etc. He asked if there was a "syntax" for broadband --
-- that is a deeper way of characterizing when a system supports 
broadband and when it does not.

I offer to the IP community a chance to take a crack at this
interesting and potentially profitable challenge.

Dave


-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Archives        




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com