Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.18 Conference Call - 26 August - 2:00 p.m. CDT - FCC Request for Help to Define "Broadband"
The FCC is asking for help with a definition, not how to fix the problem; so whether it is a piping or a switching issue is irrelevant to the question at hand.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Buddenberg [mailto:budden@nps.navy.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 1:09 PM
To: Kiernan, Brian G
Cc: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.18 Conference Call - 26 August - 2:00 p.m. CDT - FCC Request for Help to Define "Broadband"
Glue it back on, Brian.
INMARSAT's 'High Speed Data' is at exactly this bit rate. The issue is
not the plumbing (the internet's Borg'd a lot of it already); rather
it's the switching.
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 13:23 -0400, Kiernan, Brian G wrote:
> So, if I get a 2 wire phone line and a 56 kbps modem, thus "extending the internet", I have a broadband connection? Tell that to my brother in under-served rural VT who is at the end of one of those lines, and he'll laugh his a-- off.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Buddenberg [mailto:budden@nps.navy.mil]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:34 PM
> To: Kiernan, Brian G
> Cc: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> Subject: Re: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.18 Conference Call - 26 August - 2:00 p.m. CDT - FCC Request for Help to Define "Broadband"
>
> Brain,
>
> Good to remember the history; thanks for the reminder.
>
> But ....
>
> First, observations from the FCC dockets.
> The National Broadband Plan NOI (GN Docket No. 09-51) does use the term
> 'internet' -- quite prominently in the front matter. It does not use
> the term 'routable network'. (The term 'packet' only gets cameo
> appearances, mostly in the security paragraph. 'packet switch' only
> shows in the footnote about ARPANET).
> The current (DA 09-1842) uses neither the term 'internet' nor 'routable
> network' nor 'packet'.
> I suppose we should note that the original NOI included a request for
> comment on the definition of 'broadband' (Para 15) ... guess they didn't
> get enough usable input;-)
>
> Second. The ITU definition allows a couple of alternatives -- you can
> use higher-than-primary-rate pipes with muxes and circuit switches.
> There are workarounds that keep you from getting what, IMHO, we really
> want in the National Broadband Plan: extension of the internet. It's
> not surprising that ITU, given its members' circuit-switch background,
> would get to that.
> Capacity, rather than topology, is a lousy metric.
>
> Third. The above-primary is a rather indirect metric. Supposedly that
> requires you to have a MAC because we have >1 SS -- otherwise there'd be
> no point in the above-primary pipe. And the multiple subscribers
> magically gets you where we want to go... Yes, 802.16 certainly got
> there, but you get the layer 3 interoperability (internetworkability) by
> other means, not the >1 subscriber capacity.
>
> Now a step back for perspective. What is it that we want? How about
> 'extend the internet'? The legislation has the prepositional phrases
> 'to rural' and 'to underserved' in it already.
>
> My response would be that broadband should include any technology that
> 'extends the internet'. And the definition should be explicit about
> routable network.
> That allows for a single definition (would include DOCSIS and DSL) and
> be usable for the grant appropriations/applications that are driving the
> National Broadband Plan.
>
>
> Volley?
>
>
> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 10:52 -0400, Kiernan, Brian G wrote:
> > Just to start things off:
> >
> >
> >
> > Many years ago in the “dark ages” of 802.16a, we had this same
> > discussion as to the definition of “broadband”. Ultimately we decided
> > to go with the ITU definition (ITU-R F.1399), which is “connections
> > operating at or above the primary rate”. In the US, the primary rate
> > is T1 (1.544 Mbps). In Europe, it is E1 (2.048 Mbps). Note that
> > theses rates exclude many “so called” broadband” services, such as
> > DSL, which operate at rates lower than the primary rate. So , if the
> > FCC wants to track with the international definition of Broadband,
> > they should use similar phrasing (of course, that may not be
> > politically acceptable, since it will make it a lot harder to meet the
> > national broadband goal).
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Roger B. Marks [mailto:r.b.marks@ieee.org]
> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:59 PM
> > To: STDS-802-16@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> > Subject: [STDS-802-16] Fwd: 802.18 Conference Call - 26 August - 2:00
> > p.m. CDT - FCC Request for Help to Define "Broadband"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As detailed below, IEEE 802.18 plans to (quickly) develop a response
> > to the FCC regarding the definition of “broadband”.
> >
> > I am unable to attend the conference call on 26 August. Our 802.18
> > Liaison, Reza Arefi, has agreed to do so.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have comments or suggestions regarding the topic, please reply
> > to the 802.16 reflector.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Mike Lynch <freqmgr@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> >
> >
> > Date: 21 August 2009 3:32:07 PM MDT
> >
> >
> > To: STDS-802-18@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
> >
> >
> > Subject: [802-18] 802.18 Conference Call - 26 August - 2:00 p.m. CDT -
> > FCC Request for Help to Define "Broadband"
> >
> >
> > Reply-To: Mike Lynch <freqmgr@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear EC and RR-TAG,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul kindly brought to my attention that yesterday the FCC released an
> > item that asks for help in defining “broadband”. This relates to the
> > FCC’s development of a National Broadband Plan (NBP).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The following link will take you to the item:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1842A1.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > As you will see the comment due date is 31 August and reply comments
> > are due 8 September. Not only is this a very short notice proceeding
> > but it falls between IEEE 802 meetings. Paul has asked that we try to
> > implement “Option 1” contained in my earlier email to the EC and
> > develop a response to be filed on 31 August.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a reference to a previous FCC NOI regarding a nationwide
> > broadband network, GN Docket 09-51. At the May interim 802.18 made
> > comments on that NOI. The earlier FCC NOI is available on 802.18’s
> > Mentor web site:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > https://mentor.ieee.org/802.18/dcn/09/18-09-0061-02-0000-fcc-nationwide-bb-network.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The 802.18 comments are available at:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520220911
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To do this we can take advantage of 802.18’s ability to meet and
> > approve documents on conference calls. What I propose is that all
> > those WGs in 802 (not only the wireless groups) meet by conference
> > call at the date and time given below. I further propose that each
> > interested WG, as much as possible in the limited time available prior
> > to the call, develop views for discussion on what is meant by
> > “broadband”. In order to make the call work more smoothly I ask that
> > each interested WG chair (or designated representative), with no more
> > than 2 “advisors”, participate in the call. All wireless chairs
> > already have voting privileges in 802.18 and for this call that
> > privilege will be extended to all other WG chairs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Date – 26 August 2009
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Time – 2:00 pm/14:00 CDT
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bridge number – TBA NLT Tuesday, 25 August
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Pass code – TBA NLT Tuesday, 25 August
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Presuming success on the call the document will be submitted on 27
> > August for EC 5 day review and approval.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Again let me say that I realize that this is a very short notice for a
> > meeting to deal with a topic such as this one. It is important that we
> > try and put the IEEE 802 view before the FCC on time. Beside the
> > normal boilerplate at the beginning of the comments we will also
> > comment to the FCC about the very short timeframe - 11 days from the
> > public notice of the request to the comment date.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If possible please circulate any proposed text prior to the call.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Glad to discuss.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Rex Buddenberg
Naval Postgraduate School
Code IS/Bu
Monterey, Ca 93943
831/656-3576