"WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators are considering whether the government
should take greater control of the Internet and ask consumers to pay higher
phone charges in order to provide all Americans with cheaper access to
broadband Internet service.
The Federal Communications Commission Wednesday will lay out the case for
expanding broadband Internet service, outlining current obstacles to making
it widely available. The agency is considering whether to force Internet
providers to share their networks with rivals and raise fees charged on
consumer phone bills to pay for the broader access."
How about just mandating that it's illegal to build anything but fiber/gpon for services. If something fails, it needs to be replaced with modern technology.
I know here they replaced copper cable in the middle of the winter last year, it would have made more sense to just use the conduit they were replacing and put fiber in.
But the fiber union guys != copper union guys so that is harder to do.
While we're at it why not charge taxes for having security bolted on
too....I'm waiting for my Internet EZ-Pass to come in the mail to mount on
my cable modem
I'm wondering where they come up with these schemes...I didn't see any
mention of tax breaks to encourage the roll out. Just more charges.
The telcos are asking for more taxpayer-funded goodie--er... incentives to expand broadband coverage. Given that the incentives (entry into additional markets, additional fees tacked onto customer bills, reduction/elimination of various other regulatory hurdles, etc) that have been handed to them over the past 10+ years have largely failed to produce that expanded coverage and improved service, doing more of the same is pretty much throwing good money after bad.
Yeah...because when the economy is sucking wind why not raise fees to
the consumer?!?!
Want to get broadband out to people, then deal with duopolies that many
of the regions in the country have...such as Verizon & Comcast! They are
the main barriers that cause grief in deployment, giving a chance there
are any number of small businesses that could respond to a broadband
deployment faster, quicker and cheaper! Talk with any CLEC and they have
countless stories regarding the horrors of dealing with an ILEC.
Yeah...because when the economy is sucking wind why not raise fees to
the consumer?!?!
And one of the points of my original response was that consumers in large part have not received any additional value out of the fees they've paying (directly or indirectly) for the past several years. Throwing yet more cash into the hog trough doesn't make much sense.
Want to get broadband out to people, then deal with duopolies that many
of the regions in the country have...such as Verizon & Comcast! They are
the main barriers that cause grief in deployment, giving a chance there
are any number of small businesses that could respond to a broadband
deployment faster, quicker and cheaper! Talk with any CLEC and they have
countless stories regarding the horrors of dealing with an ILEC.
Having worked much more closely with many ILECs in a previous life than I do now, I have plenty of horror stories of my own.
How about just mandating that it's illegal to build anything but fiber/gpon for services.
I would expand on this and say we should make it illegal for any telecom carrier to refuse to put their assets into service wherever they may be, and going forward we should force conditions on all telecom carriers to sell to all at any technical feasible point to all comers, and further to require planned points of interconnection for competitors and rules about how much overbuild is required (minimum fiber counts that should be reserved for 'the public interest') and so forth. We saw how the telecoms gamed the 96 telecom act, so now we know and we can do better and design in indefeasble rules that take away the game playing and replace it with service that actually gets to people who need it.
I happen to be an operator in a rural area and the realities are that prices are waaayyyy high (over $100/mbps), where you can get any sort of bigname telco service at all. At the same time however, there is plenty of fiber in the ground, on the poles and passing thru regeneration huts all thru the area that is doing absolutely no good for the local populations. There are plenty of already existing possible points of interconnection, but there's no requirement that they be forced to sell to you at these points. An example in my area is Level3 communications, who has an international fiber route running thru my county and 2 regeneration huts and at least one of these confirmed as having all necessary gear to sell ethernet/tdm handoff services. I have a competitor who was able to get into this one before l3 bought it (former Wiltel sites) and enjoys $20/mbps but since then although there's been plenty of discussion the bottom line is l3 simply isn't _interested_ in selling _us_ service, leaving us (and our county) at the mercy of att for all connectivity, making att a single point of failure, empowering att to charge outlandish prices for connectivity services since everything has to go at least 100 miles away (triggering those 'loop charges' we're all so fond of, since they won't dare put in opteman or other advanced distance insensitive options, oh heavens no you need those old expensive copper tdm services and anything you want to connect to is gonna be a long, long ways away....)
What really burns me up is that L3 had the odacity to apply for federal BTOP dollars for creating exactly the problem they are proposing to resolve. Gee what an original idea - get federal grant money to sell a service that we're already sellling at a zero cost!
Ok Im don't spewing now, thanks for letting me vent.
Does anyone know an easy way to do "kill thread" in MacOS's Mail.App? It's getting increasingly hard to read the NANOG list on my Mac without such a capability. (Yes, the question is serious on its own, apart from any other meanings you may choose to read into it.)
I think he meant being able to easily delete an entire thread of emails, like you might be able to if you were using Gmail. Sadly I don't know of any feature that does this in Mail.app, but you can always make a Smart Mailbox with the rule Any Recipient : Contains : "nanog@merit.edu" and delete things within that mailbox.
Well, I was reading this https://mozillalabs.com/raindrop and it could have the potential
to solve these problems for non gmail users and policy issues surrounding email itself.
This is not intended to rain on anyones parade.
I think he meant being able to easily delete an entire thread of emails, like you might be able to if you were using Gmail.
Yup, precisely.
Sadly I don't know of any feature that does this in Mail.app, but you can always make a Smart Mailbox with the rule Any Recipient : Contains : "nanog@merit.edu" and delete things within that mailbox.
Or a rule to at least mark the messages as read. I can do that -- I do do that, for threads that have gotten too annoying for too long, but it takes many mouse clicks to add each new offending subject line.
I believe that Steve's desire was to kill *future* messages in the same thread. e.g., a rule that says 'delete all mail from nanog with the subject line 'Policy News' until December 1, 2010'.
This would be a marvelous feature indeed. Sadly, I don't know how to do it in Mail.app.
Ah, I thought you meant threads were blocking Mail.app from processing messages in other mailboxes. I subscribe to several imap boxes with over half a million messages in them, so I use activity monitor to kill sync all the time. Mail.app seems to not process anything else on the same account as long as it's busy processing a subscription for a particular mailbox, which can take forever in some cases.
As to the actual question, I use Mail.app in threaded mode anyway. When I'm not interested in a thread, I just let it collect messages and mark it as read every couple of days. I'm not aware of any way to tell Mail.app to quit showing messages from a particular thread.
Want to get broadband out to people, then deal with duopolies that many
of the regions in the country have...such as Verizon & Comcast
WRT to Comcast ...
There is nothing preventing *any* company from building a cable network in any existing MSO territory. Each license is negotiated town-by-town, county-by-county, there aren't any exclusivity agreements, which allow companies like RCN to compete.
The reason why there isn't more local competition is, well, it's kinda seriously captial inte$ive. You ever notice why RCN doesn't overbuild in East Nowheresville, MI (where Jared lives apparently :)??? Because it's not profitable!
-Steve (Comcast employee, speaking on my own behalf)
