[Info-vax] US Broadband

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2015-03-04 16:45:02 +0000, glen herrmannsfeldt said:

> Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> Right.  The PUC has jurisdiction over the T-1 circuit that goes from 
>> you to your ISP, only.  Negotiating the internet service is between you 
>> and the ISP.
> 
> Yes, but as I understand it, not all telcos will lease such pairs.

The local telco won't provide private point-to-point links, per a 
statement by their regional president.

Which means using the telco broadband via ADSL or MPLS carrier ethernet 
and/or optical where one or more of those are available, which means 
FCC oversight, which means no local PUC oversight.

Or cable broadband or terrestrial wireless, in those areas where that 
is available.

Or it means acquiring access to existing private links and/or running 
your own wires and establishing your own pole access and where the PUC 
does have jurisdiction particularly within the public right-of-ways, or 
establishing your own point-to-point wireless links, and — other than 
wires down or safety hazards and the pole access — a private broadband 
path also has little PUC oversight.

Communications towers and broadband towers and antennas have some 
regulations, though some specific configurations are effectively or 
explicitly exempted.

Broadband is easily available throughout the US.  Affordable broadband 
is not ubiquitous, however.   Outside of telco telephone circuits, a 
state PUC will generally (and correctly) be of little help with 
broadband communications, and a state legislature will be of little 
help beyond removing the few remaining constraints and/or approving 
overlay tax districts and/or (unlikely) providing funding for 
build-outs.

TL;DR: Bill, dude, get yourself a pied-à-terre or office, or move.  Or 
satellite or maybe terrestrial wireless.   Or cash in a few of those 
gold ingots you've hidden away, and start your own provider.  The FCC 
"net neutrality" decision is probably going to be a step in the right 
direction, but it — once we get to see the text, and once it's all 
litigated — will likely do nothing to address ubiquity or 
affordability, nor the "last mile" hardware incompatibilities and 
system duplications, or otherwise.  The private providers have — and 
entirely correctly, under current laws and current policies — have most 
of the rights and responsibilities and decisions, here — this all 
involves their investments and their networks and their revenues and 
their natural monopolies, after all.

European-style streamlining of the networks and of the network hardware 
akin to deploying GSM is not likely politically acceptable in the US, 
even if standardizing empirically appears to lead to more competition 
and lower costs and broader coverage, whether considering the adoption 
of GSM outside of the US, or considering what the standardization due 
to the AT&T monopoly did with US telco in the last century.   At least 
the US only has a few remaining artifacts of the different power 
systems that were once in more common use 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents> and those are in decline 
<http://www.coned.com/newsroom/news/pr20071115.asp>, unlike the 
mixed-Hz AC system that Japan has 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency#History>.   Touching 
briefly on some related DEC history somewhat more befitting this 
newsgroup, the Maynard Mill water turbine electric generator was 40 Hz 
<http://collection.maynardhistory.org/items/show/3451> 
<http://collection.maynardhistory.org/files/original/3d00dcd0ad9848eb0bcd88ab80e6c37a.jpeg> 
<http://collection.maynardhistory.org/files/original/62097756a41c037e3bb7c9cbd561f52f.jpeg> 
<http://web.maynard.ma.us/history/mill-history.htm>.   But US broadband 
definitely hasn't settled out yet, and probably won't for the 
foreseeable future.  And US broadband probably won't be affordable or 
ubiquitous anytime soon.  Not on Bill's schedule.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC