Re: FTTH Active vs Passive

From: Randy Bush (no email)
Date: Wed Dec 02 2009 - 02:32:11 EST

  • Next message: Fletcher Kittredge: "Re: FTTH Active vs Passive"

    > At the risk of sounding like a politician I will actually state that the
    > physical/private interest topology of the fiber network in the United States
    > is incredibly prohibitive of the advances that you guys are talking about.
    > The big picture here is table scraps to equipment manufacturers no matter
    > how crowded the vendor meet is. There are pockets of isolated/niche success
    > and its great to see technology implemented in such ways, RFCs being
    > drafted, etc., but jeez guys, the real issue at stake here is how in the
    > hell we are all going to work past the bureaucratic constraints of our
    > arguably humble positions to transparently superimpose something that will
    > enable the masses to communicate and, at the same time, appease, for lack of
    > a better word, those who would capitalize on the sheer lack of unified
    > infrastructure. This post in itself obviates our incapacity to handle our
    > own infrastructure, and while I believe discussing this is of the utmost
    > importance I have to point out, first and foremost, that the highest
    > priority is a level playing field. I know at least some of you can really
    > understand that and I hope it drive some of your sleeping points home a bit
    > so you can wake up in the morning and get something right.

    life can be simple. i moved to a first world country, japan. $35/mo
    for real 100/100, and i could get faster, just don't need it for a
    couple of laptops.

    hope y'all are having fun in duopoly jail.

    randy


  • Next message: Fletcher Kittredge: "Re: FTTH Active vs Passive"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD