Key characteristics of broadband : always on capability (reasonably, DSL ok, dial up no). I would argue 7mb is broadband even if its over carrier pigeon. (meets always on criteria).
I think the threshold for cut off is somewhere between 256kbit/s and 1.5mbit/s. If you don't think 1.5mbit is broadband, you need to consider tiers... Most of the worlds population will not see *that* speed in 20yrs.
Deepak
And 640k is enough. When I started in this game 15 or so yrs back the
'backbone' in Canada was a 56k figure 8 loop, running frame relay. We
moved to T1 a yr or so later. Buy the time I left Canada to work for
internetMCI a yr later, we're @ DS3's in Canada. Technology evolves
quickly. Just because some place does not have 'high-speed' internet
now, doesn't mean they will not in 5 yrs. I sure we could site here
and site all the places in the world they will not due to
politics/poverty/all other bad things in the world, but its not reason
to limit the goals of people that are part of these projects.
-jim
I think it has become obvious that the correct definition of broadband depends on the users location. A house in the boonies is not going to get fiber, Perhaps the minimum acceptable bandwidth should vary by area. A definition of "area" could be some sort of user density measurement by census tract.
Deepak Jain wrote:
Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal. I
though it was Orewell that made some more equal then others. 
-jim
We are talking government handouts here and they never make sense....
jim deleskie wrote:
Once upon a time, jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com> said:
Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal.
Nobody is forcing anybody to live out where high-speed Internet is not
currently feasible (or at least not at a price that those residents want
to pay). I live half a mile from a six lane highway; that doesn't mean
that we have to build six lane highways to within half a mile of
everybody in the country.
Wrong analogy, you have no way to use all 6 lanes @ once. The highway
is an aggregation device not access method. Unless you have 6 lanes
into your driveway
Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has.
-j
Except this is exactly what happened. The players with vested interests were allowed a sort of "first refusal" on projects. In areas where they had lots of customers, they passed on the projects. So, we find that in urban areas, you can't get fiber in the home, but there are countless rural farms and homes that have fiber just lying around. I have an acquaintance 60 miles from the closest commercial airport in TN, telling me about the fiber internet he has.
As an example of the above, Verizon has until 2017 to get FIOS to all of the neighborhoods of Washington DC (http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/11/24/daily8.html). I am envious of many of my suburban-dwelling coworkers and friends who already have it.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
http://www.listentothefranchise.com
James:
I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal?
If I had to guess, what really happened here is that the rural LEC is able
to build out FTTH because they are counting on USF (high cost loop support
and interstate common line support) to help pay it, while the LEC in an
urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even
with a dense customer base.
Frank
That deadline is for video.
Frank
I'm not following you here -- which party has the right of first refusal?
The incumbent companies (generally, a LEC or cable company) are able to refuse projects and also effectively prevent buildouts and upgrades from being done by a 3rd party. However, I have seen reports that in a few areas, municipalities are starting to win lawsuits against them (in apparently the long appeals process).
urban area receives no USF, and is not able to financially justify it even
with a dense customer base.
That might apply to fiber, but even speed upgrades (Newer DSL services) are apparently subject to the same refusal process, but the rules are different across the country, too.
-j
I don't think LECs to MSOs have first right of refusal..it's possible that
with MSOs that the city has give the franchise exclusivity, but blame the
city then, not the MSO. What happens more often is that the LEC or MSO uses
legal, lobbying, or legislative means to put a stop to the competition, but
it's not first right of refusal. In the cases where munis lost, it was in
relationship to telephone service and a city's ability to obtain a
certificate of service (see here for one muni's story:
http://www.cityofhawarden.com/HiTec/History.html). Another route to
opposition is if it fills up RoW, though I haven't personally read as much
about that. Possibly because if the new company is a desperate enough,
they'll come up with a way to address the RoW constraints or show how it's
not a real issue. Remember, if it really *is* constrained, the new company
won't be super eager to build in there, either.
Frank