NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Request for input on the definition of Broadband
----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:54:52 -0400 From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Request for input on the definition of Broadband Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> 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 supportsbroadband 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 ----- End forwarded message -----