"Dennis Ferguson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On 2010-08-15, Nessnet <[email protected]> wrote:
>> #2 - there isn't this huge overabundance you think there is. All of the long haul routes nowadays
>> are using DWDM to squeeze more out of the existing glass - which wouldn't be necessary if there
>> was a huge glut of available dark. There may be a few exceptions to this, but isolated, not the norm...
>
> I thought DWDM was often used on long haul routes because it allowed
> them to light new channels by just installing equipment at the ends,
> sharing the same set of EFDAs, rather than having to install a whole
> new set of amplifiers to light another fiber. DWDM optics have
> gotten cheap enough that, on long circuits, the savings in EFDAs
> will pay back the difference.
>
> Dennis Ferguson
>

It isn't just long haul.
Here locally, (and in most metro areas I deal with), pretty much all of the carrier's metro rings are C or DWDM.
I'm sure there are various reasons, but in my experience, most are doing it to squeeze more out of existing glass.
It's certainly MUCH cheaper to hang new gear on the ends vs trenching...

Example: when I worked for a 'certain large cable company' doing metro ethernet projects for large enterprise, gov'mt
and schools, there were areas where there just wasn't much glass to spare. Layer 1 was the best way to go in order to
get the projects built cost effectively.

On 2010-08-15, Nessnet <[email protected]> wrote:
> #2 - there isn't this huge overabundance you think there is. All of the long haul routes nowadays
> are using DWDM to squeeze more out of the existing glass - which wouldn't be necessary if there
> was a huge glut of available dark. There may be a few exceptions to this, but isolated, not the norm...

I thought DWDM was often used on long haul routes because it allowed
them to light new channels by just installing equipment at the ends,
sharing the same set of EFDAs, rather than having to install a whole
new set of amplifiers to light another fiber. DWDM optics have
gotten cheap enough that, on long circuits, the savings in EFDAs
will pay back the difference.

Dennis Ferguson

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:51:49 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Hell, no -- didn't Obama promise us all OC-48's?!
>
>I can't remember that "Promise Number"....(c;]
>
>There's so many.....

Like the public option in health care.

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Hell, no -- didn't Obama promise us all OC-48's?!
>
>

I can't remember that "Promise Number"....(c;]

There's so many.....


--
http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?!
Larry

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 05:46:29 +0000, in
<[email protected]>, Larry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Of course not. If you want an OC-3, be my guest.
>
>Are you askin' me to downgrade my service?....(c;]

Hell, no -- didn't Obama promise us all OC-48's?!

--
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Of course not. If you want an OC-3, be my guest.
>

Are you askin' me to downgrade my service?....(c;]


--
http://www.energyradio.jo/ English hiphop station in Ammon, Jordan?!
Larry

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 21:04:18 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, "stevev" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>... So the question remains, what is
>the best way to contiue to improve internet service? Should we charge only
>those that use the "premium" service, or charge everyone even if they don't
>use (or want) the added service at all? Historically we have charged the
>premium users. People who use more gasoline or have heavy vehicles (trucks)
>pay more road taxes. People who wanted the ability to make unlimited phone
>calls (landline or cellular) paid more than those on the basic service.
>People who wanted 500 TV channels or commercial-free satellite radio paid
>more. "We" provided assistance to everyone to switch to HD TV, but we
>didn't hook them all up to cable. I receive faster DSL than my neighbor
>right next door due to the distance limits of DSL. I also pay slightly
>more.

We already charge by usage for the Internet, as you note -- pipes are
charged by capacity, explicitly or implicitly, slow small pipes cost
less, fast large pipes cost more.

>Should I be prevented from having a faster connect, even though I'm
>willing to pay for it, beacuse my neighbor can't?

Of course not. If you want an OC-3, be my guest.

>Should the phone company
>be required to upgrade equipment that would allow my neighbor to receive the
>same speed?

Of course. That's the equality principle. The phone company will have
to make it attractive enough to enough users to justify the upgrade.

>And who should pay, all phone company customers, all DSL
>customers (even those currently within the distance limitation), or only the
>new user?

Those getting faster greater service will of course pay more than those
getting slower lesser service -- nothing inconsistent in that -- think
consumer DSL versus OC-3. The problem arises when you attempt to get
preferential treatment on shared infrastructure.

>Or maybe we should just put meters on computers.

On Internet connections, not computers -- I'm all for that -- flat rate
pricing distorts the market and inhibits efficient use of resources.

>And who's to say that the provider of premium services won't take some of
>that premium money and figure out how to compress the information further
>that it currently is, or expand the bandwith capablilities without adding
>new cable, or some other yet-to-be-discovered technology, thereby making it
>affordable and available to all.

Ah yes, trickle down, that old chestnut again. Regardless, the pricing
of the premium service has nothing to do with the Internet -- if you
want to pay a bazillion dollars a month for some exotic service, you'll
get no objection from Net Neutrality advocates like me.

>Should the developer of that technology,
>regardless of who it is, be required to give it away for free for the
>benefit of everyone? I think not. He may choose to for whatever reason,
>like many open source apps, but should he be required to?

Of course not, but that's a red herring -- the issue is the Internet,
not services provided over the Internet. You're already free to sign up
for whatever service you want at whatever price you're willing to pay
and buy a sufficiently big pipe for the contents, just as long as you're
not trying to get preferential treatment on the shared pipes that serve
all of us. If you truly need preferential treatment, then you're free
to buy your own private infrastructure -- no need or reason to hijack
the shared infrastructure.

--
John

"We have met the enemy and he is us" -Pogo

"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/08/10 11:43 PM, Larry wrote:
>
>> What resulted is an electric power system, operated by the citizens FOR
>> the citizens second to none in South Carolina and the Southeast. DPU
>> customers, without all the profit margin bull**** that pervades
>> everything else in a private corporation, enjoy really cheap electric
>> rates and rolled their profits back into the system.
>
> <snip>
>
> PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) spent $46 million in the last California
> election trying to get a law passed that would stop municipalities from
> operating their own power systems. Presently there are several cities that
> do this, and their rates are considerably lower than the rates charged in
> cities served by PG&E. The utility was especially concerned that San
> Francisco would go this route.
>
> Fortunately they were unsuccessful in their efforts. Even $46 million
> couldn't buy the election (versus $80,000 spent by the opposition), though
> it was too close for comfort (it lost 52.5% to 47.5%). The fact that
> virtually every newspaper and even almost every business group came out
> against it helped defeat it. The utility promoted the law as "The
> Taxpayers Right to Vote Act." Probably the most dishonest use of the
> initiative process in California history.

Ah, good old Prop 16. SMUD may operate more efficiently than PG&E, but it
is essentially a for-profit business, AND, in a way it does charge for
premium services in as much as those who use more than the basic rate pay
more. Isn't that why you have a meter? So the question remains, what is
the best way to contiue to improve internet service? Should we charge only
those that use the "premium" service, or charge everyone even if they don't
use (or want) the added service at all? Historically we have charged the
premium users. People who use more gasoline or have heavy vehicles (trucks)
pay more road taxes. People who wanted the ability to make unlimited phone
calls (landline or cellular) paid more than those on the basic service.
People who wanted 500 TV channels or commercial-free satellite radio paid
more. "We" provided assistance to everyone to switch to HD TV, but we
didn't hook them all up to cable. I receive faster DSL than my neighbor
right next door due to the distance limits of DSL. I also pay slightly
more. Should I be prevented from having a faster connect, even though I'm
willing to pay for it, beacuse my neighbor can't? Should the phone company
be required to upgrade equipment that would allow my neighbor to receive the
same speed? And who should pay, all phone company customers, all DSL
customers (even those currently within the distance limitation), or only the
new user? Or maybe we should just put meters on computers.

And who's to say that the provider of premium services won't take some of
that premium money and figure out how to compress the information further
that it currently is, or expand the bandwith capablilities without adding
new cable, or some other yet-to-be-discovered technology, thereby making it
affordable and available to all. Should the developer of that technology,
regardless of who it is, be required to give it away for free for the
benefit of everyone? I think not. He may choose to for whatever reason,
like many open source apps, but should he be required to?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

"stevev" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "NotMe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:11:50 -0700, in
>>> <[email protected]>, "stevev" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>> As the well-to-do are fond of saying, much like the original notion of
>>>>> property as a prerequisite for voting. Yet another case of (bogus)
>>>>> Trickle Down Economics.
>>>>>
>>>>> The great strides in this country (like universal phone service, rural
>>>>> electrification, interstate highway system, Internet) have all come
>>>>> from
>>>>> the fundamental notion of *equality*. See "Democracy for the Few" by
>>>>> Michael Parenti [ISBN: 0495911267]
>>>
>>>>Are you talking about "from each according to his ablility, to each
>>>>accordning to his needs" type equality.
>>>
>>> Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't.
>>> Must you stoop to Straw Man argument?
>>>
>>>>>Wouldn't internet equality imply that "everyone" is able to watch
>>>>Avatar 3D on their laptop? The FACT is that is not the case, although
>>>>the
>>>>ability to do so might be available to them...if they were only willing
>>>>and/or able to pay for premium service.
>>>
>>> Another Straw Man: The issue is the pipe, not the remote service
>>> provider. We're not objecting to any service provider charging whatever
>>> they want to charge and letting the chips fall where they may. We're
>>> objecting to them setting up *their* preferential arrangements on the
>>> pipes *we* are paying for, the kind of fundamental disconnect you see in
>>> (bogus) trickle down economics (Robin Hood in reverse).
>>>
>>> The toll road example is every bit as bogus, since these toll roads
>>> depend on public domain and right of way that belongs to *all* of us,
>>> not just the well-to-do. We have no objection to completely private
>>> toll roads, just to the appropriation for the few of what really belongs
>>> to the many (the public).
>>>
>>
>> Might check into what the Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tried to do in Texas.
>> Investors from outside the USA would have all the rights of eminent
>> domain to acquire property and right of way and and and then set the
>> rules and rates for tolls for 50 + years. with no ability of the public
>> to have any input once the deal was done.
>>
>> Don't know about the rest of the county but 'right of way' for power,
>> phone, internet cable are PUBLIC rights of way. Some years back the
>> power companies tried to game the system in a manner that would exempt
>> them from paying the majority of fees for the use of those rights of AND
>> give them control over any other application that might be proposed by
>> other for the use of those rights of way.
>>
>
> Which takes us full circle in this discussion. Granting exclusive rights
> would not be a good idea (what did Texas decide?), but charging for
> premium services among power, phone, water, transportation, and even
> internet is common. Phone companies were notorious for charging business
> more than residential, message unit v. local, night and weekend calling,
> and forget about overseas calls until services like Vonage and others came
> along and changed the dynamic. My original comment was that we routinely
> charge for premium services, and to dismiss the Google/Verizon proposal
> simple on the basis of "hell no, the internet is public" is absurd. There
> has to be some middle ground.

Gov. Goodhair tried every thing he could to get the deal done but common
folk took exception. Any politician that pushes toll roads is taking a
serious chance on not being reelected.

N Texas as a 'public' toll system that has a lot of folk a bit bent. We use
it but watch them like a hawk (can you ***** creative billing?)

"George" <>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful
>>>>>>> protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> almost
>>>>>>> no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The government paid for much of this in tax breaks and flat out
>>>>>> payments to
>>>>>> telcos to push cables out there.
>>>>>
>>>>> I worked at a company that had Internet connectivity as you described.
>>>>> The connectivity to the Internet consisted of a single T1 that landed
>>>>> in
>>>>> a university that was shared by 5 other colleges and at least 5
>>>>> businesses (that I knew of) doing government contracting. Connectivity
>>>>> to the local university was via leased lines and dialup.
>>>>>
>>>>> In what way do you equate that to "todays Internet" that is the result
>>>>> of private investment where most individual users have far more
>>>>> bandwidth than 11 organizations had available?
>>>>>
>>>>> And to highlight the difference there just happens to be a major
>>>>> providers NOC center not far from the university that had the T1.
>>>>> Their
>>>>> main backbone connectivity is dual 10 Gigibit circuits (thats *13
>>>>> billion* T1s) from different providers that constructed private
>>>>> networks
>>>>> along the railroad tracks.
>>>>
>>>> Lookup dark fibre, and see all the overabundance of bandwidth not being
>>>> used that
>>>> was paid for by the govt. through subsidies to the backbone providers.
>>>
>>> #1 - most of that excess was because of overbuilding during the
>>> 'dot.com'
>>> era, not because of any
>>> government subsidies.
>>>
>>> #2 - there isn't this huge overabundance you think there is. All of the
>>> long haul routes nowadays
>>> are using DWDM to squeeze more out of the existing glass - which
>>> wouldn't
>>> be necessary if there
>>> was a huge glut of available dark. There may be a few exceptions to
>>> this,
>>> but isolated, not the norm...
>>
>> High power electric transmission lines the cables are hollow and
>> beginning
>> decades ago were filled with dark fiber. Much the same has happened with
>> local distribution as well.
>>
>>
>>
> Where was what you described installed? All of the fiber I know of that
> shares electric right of way is a discrete cable that is either hung on
> brackets on the towers or poles or buried alongside electric lines.
>
> What you described about hollow cables is true of really old copper lines
> (that predate fiber by a long time). Aerial power lines are typically ACSR
> (Aluminum Cable Steel Reinforced).
>
> Much the same as what has happened with local distribution?

EHT power lines typically use aluminum with a hollow core to transmit on the
power grid. since the grid needs control the practice was to include fiber
inside the hollow (has to do with the physics of power transmission) 'wire'

Regardless of the make up of the metal at first it was a small set of fiber
but over time the capacity was maxed out to whatever could be put inside as
it was very cheap and the power transmission companies anticipated
communications requirements.

Many but not all by any measure local disruption has also been adding dark
fiber inside the electrical distribution.

I got out of the game about 15 years back so what I know about current
availability and practice is just what I hear from friends that are still
active.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 15:40:55 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, "stevev" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"NotMe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...

>>> Another Straw Man: The issue is the pipe, not the remote service
>>> provider. We're not objecting to any service provider charging whatever
>>> they want to charge and letting the chips fall where they may. We're
>>> objecting to them setting up *their* preferential arrangements on the
>>> pipes *we* are paying for, the kind of fundamental disconnect you see in
>>> (bogus) trickle down economics (Robin Hood in reverse).
>>>
>>> The toll road example is every bit as bogus, since these toll roads
>>> depend on public domain and right of way that belongs to *all* of us,
>>> not just the well-to-do. We have no objection to completely private
>>> toll roads, just to the appropriation for the few of what really belongs
>>> to the many (the public).
>>>
>>
>> Might check into what the Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tried to do in Texas.
>> Investors from outside the USA would have all the rights of eminent domain
>> to acquire property and right of way and and and then set the rules and
>> rates for tolls for 50 + years. with no ability of the public to have any
>> input once the deal was done.
>>
>> Don't know about the rest of the county but 'right of way' for power,
>> phone, internet cable are PUBLIC rights of way. Some years back the power
>> companies tried to game the system in a manner that would exempt them from
>> paying the majority of fees for the use of those rights of AND give them
>> control over any other application that might be proposed by other for the
>> use of those rights of way.
>
>Which takes us full circle in this discussion. Granting exclusive rights
>would not be a good idea (what did Texas decide?), but charging for premium
>services among power, phone, water, transportation, and even internet is
>common.

Actually not -- public services have typically been mandated to be (a)
universal and (b) affordable. Otherwise the private folks need to be
*completely* on their own; i.e., acquire their own right of way, not
expect to get a free ride on the public nickel. The notable exceptions,
like land grants to railroads, were simply outrageous.

>Phone companies were notorious for charging business more than
>residential, message unit v. local, night and weekend calling, and forget
>about overseas calls until services like Vonage and others came along and
>changed the dynamic.

Basic residential service was mandated to be universal and affordable,
and whether the other outrageous charges should have been allowed is
more than a bit controversial.

>My original comment was that we routinely charge for
>premium services, and to dismiss the Google/Verizon proposal simple on the
>basis of "hell no, the internet is public" is absurd. There has to be some
>middle ground.

They are like railroads asking for land grants, which should be denied
for the same reason. The airwaves are *public*, not private, and all
attempts to privatize them should be rejected out of hand.

--
John

"Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have
to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston]

"NotMe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:11:50 -0700, in
>> <[email protected]>, "stevev" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>> As the well-to-do are fond of saying, much like the original notion of
>>>> property as a prerequisite for voting. Yet another case of (bogus)
>>>> Trickle Down Economics.
>>>>
>>>> The great strides in this country (like universal phone service, rural
>>>> electrification, interstate highway system, Internet) have all come
>>>> from
>>>> the fundamental notion of *equality*. See "Democracy for the Few" by
>>>> Michael Parenti [ISBN: 0495911267]
>>
>>>Are you talking about "from each according to his ablility, to each
>>>accordning to his needs" type equality.
>>
>> Where did I say that? Hint: I didn't.
>> Must you stoop to Straw Man argument?
>>
>>>>Wouldn't internet equality imply that "everyone" is able to watch
>>>Avatar 3D on their laptop? The FACT is that is not the case, although
>>>the
>>>ability to do so might be available to them...if they were only willing
>>>and/or able to pay for premium service.
>>
>> Another Straw Man: The issue is the pipe, not the remote service
>> provider. We're not objecting to any service provider charging whatever
>> they want to charge and letting the chips fall where they may. We're
>> objecting to them setting up *their* preferential arrangements on the
>> pipes *we* are paying for, the kind of fundamental disconnect you see in
>> (bogus) trickle down economics (Robin Hood in reverse).
>>
>> The toll road example is every bit as bogus, since these toll roads
>> depend on public domain and right of way that belongs to *all* of us,
>> not just the well-to-do. We have no objection to completely private
>> toll roads, just to the appropriation for the few of what really belongs
>> to the many (the public).
>>
>
> Might check into what the Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tried to do in Texas.
> Investors from outside the USA would have all the rights of eminent domain
> to acquire property and right of way and and and then set the rules and
> rates for tolls for 50 + years. with no ability of the public to have any
> input once the deal was done.
>
> Don't know about the rest of the county but 'right of way' for power,
> phone, internet cable are PUBLIC rights of way. Some years back the power
> companies tried to game the system in a manner that would exempt them from
> paying the majority of fees for the use of those rights of AND give them
> control over any other application that might be proposed by other for the
> use of those rights of way.
>

Which takes us full circle in this discussion. Granting exclusive rights
would not be a good idea (what did Texas decide?), but charging for premium
services among power, phone, water, transportation, and even internet is
common. Phone companies were notorious for charging business more than
residential, message unit v. local, night and weekend calling, and forget
about overseas calls until services like Vonage and others came along and
changed the dynamic. My original comment was that we routinely charge for
premium services, and to dismiss the Google/Verizon proposal simple on the
basis of "hell no, the internet is public" is absurd. There has to be some
middle ground.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: [email protected] ---

On 8/15/2010 5:37 PM, NotMe wrote:
> "Nessnet"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Justin"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> George wrote on [Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:04:30 -0400]:
>>>> On 8/15/2010 2:51 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>> stevev wrote on [Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:42:00 -0700]:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of
>>>>>> large
>>>>>> government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful
>>>>>> protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with
>>>>>> almost
>>>>>> no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
>>>>>
>>>>> The government paid for much of this in tax breaks and flat out
>>>>> payments to
>>>>> telcos to push cables out there.
>>>>
>>>> I worked at a company that had Internet connectivity as you described.
>>>> The connectivity to the Internet consisted of a single T1 that landed in
>>>> a university that was shared by 5 other colleges and at least 5
>>>> businesses (that I knew of) doing government contracting. Connectivity
>>>> to the local university was via leased lines and dialup.
>>>>
>>>> In what way do you equate that to "todays Internet" that is the result
>>>> of private investment where most individual users have far more
>>>> bandwidth than 11 organizations had available?
>>>>
>>>> And to highlight the difference there just happens to be a major
>>>> providers NOC center not far from the university that had the T1. Their
>>>> main backbone connectivity is dual 10 Gigibit circuits (thats *13
>>>> billion* T1s) from different providers that constructed private networks
>>>> along the railroad tracks.
>>>
>>> Lookup dark fibre, and see all the overabundance of bandwidth not being
>>> used that
>>> was paid for by the govt. through subsidies to the backbone providers.
>>
>> #1 - most of that excess was because of overbuilding during the 'dot.com'
>> era, not because of any
>> government subsidies.
>>
>> #2 - there isn't this huge overabundance you think there is. All of the
>> long haul routes nowadays
>> are using DWDM to squeeze more out of the existing glass - which wouldn't
>> be necessary if there
>> was a huge glut of available dark. There may be a few exceptions to this,
>> but isolated, not the norm...
>
> High power electric transmission lines the cables are hollow and beginning
> decades ago were filled with dark fiber. Much the same has happened with
> local distribution as well.
>
>
>
Where was what you described installed? All of the fiber I know of that
shares electric right of way is a discrete cable that is either hung on
brackets on the towers or poles or buried alongside electric lines.

What you described about hollow cables is true of really old copper
lines (that predate fiber by a long time). Aerial power lines are
typically ACSR (Aluminum Cable Steel Reinforced).

Much the same as what has happened with local distribution?

"Nessnet" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> George wrote on [Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:04:30 -0400]:
>>> On 8/15/2010 2:51 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> stevev wrote on [Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:42:00 -0700]:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of
>>>>> large
>>>>> government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful
>>>>> protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with
>>>>> almost
>>>>> no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than
>>>>> a
>>>>> decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of
>>>>> the
>>>>> most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
>>>>
>>>> The government paid for much of this in tax breaks and flat out
>>>> payments to
>>>> telcos to push cables out there.
>>>
>>> I worked at a company that had Internet connectivity as you described.
>>> The connectivity to the Internet consisted of a single T1 that landed in
>>> a university that was shared by 5 other colleges and at least 5
>>> businesses (that I knew of) doing government contracting. Connectivity
>>> to the local university was via leased lines and dialup.
>>>
>>> In what way do you equate that to "todays Internet" that is the result
>>> of private investment where most individual users have far more
>>> bandwidth than 11 organizations had available?
>>>
>>> And to highlight the difference there just happens to be a major
>>> providers NOC center not far from the university that had the T1. Their
>>> main backbone connectivity is dual 10 Gigibit circuits (thats *13
>>> billion* T1s) from different providers that constructed private networks
>>> along the railroad tracks.
>>
>> Lookup dark fibre, and see all the overabundance of bandwidth not being
>> used that
>> was paid for by the govt. through subsidies to the backbone providers.
>
> #1 - most of that excess was because of overbuilding during the 'dot.com'
> era, not because of any
> government subsidies.
>
> #2 - there isn't this huge overabundance you think there is. All of the
> long haul routes nowadays
> are using DWDM to squeeze more out of the existing glass - which wouldn't
> be necessary if there
> was a huge glut of available dark. There may be a few exceptions to this,
> but isolated, not the norm...

High power electric transmission lines the cables are hollow and beginning
decades ago were filled with dark fiber. Much the same has happened with
local distribution as well.

George wrote on [Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:04:30 -0400]:
> On 8/15/2010 2:51 PM, Justin wrote:
>> stevev wrote on [Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:42:00 -0700]:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Internet, in fact, reaffirms the basic free market critique of large
>>> government. Here for 30 years the government had an immensely useful
>>> protocol for transferring information, TCP/IP, but it languished with almost
>>> no added benefit other than to the military and academia. In less than a
>>> decade, private concerns have taken that protocol and created one of the
>>> most important technological revolutions of the millennia.
>>
>> The government paid for much of this in tax breaks and flat out payments to
>> telcos to push cables out there.
>
> I worked at a company that had Internet connectivity as you described.
> The connectivity to the Internet consisted of a single T1 that landed in
> a university that was shared by 5 other colleges and at least 5
> businesses (that I knew of) doing government contracting. Connectivity
> to the local university was via leased lines and dialup.
>
> In what way do you equate that to "todays Internet" that is the result
> of private investment where most individual users have far more
> bandwidth than 11 organizations had available?
>
> And to highlight the difference there just happens to be a major
> providers NOC center not far from the university that had the T1. Their
> main backbone connectivity is dual 10 Gigibit circuits (thats *13
> billion* T1s) from different providers that constructed private networks
> along the railroad tracks.

Lookup dark fibre, and see all the overabundance of bandwidth not being used that
was paid for by the govt. through subsidies to the backbone providers.