lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| reply to nixen
Re: Data collection rules need upgrading; but 2/1 for BB doesn't
I'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband.
Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| said by lesopp  :I'd feel more comfortable if the IETF or some such technical group defined broadband. Given their track records over the past 30 years any congressional definition, of how fast something should be or how efficient something should be, lacks creditability. Ok... So, you would turn over rule-making for domestic commerce to an international body that neither has that in their charter nor would likely want such responsibility.
At any rate, what would you consider to be a "fair" measurement of what broadband is? Would "1% of prevailing long-haul network technologies" be fair?
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
| I'm skeptical of anything defined by politicians, however, if the definition were authored by the scientific and engineering community I would feel differently.
It is not that I think 2/1 is unfair, rather I think it is arbitrary. Is there a engineering basis for 2/1, I would like a to know why not more or why not less.
It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it.
I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement:
The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| said by lesopp :It has nothing to do with commerce, which existed before there was a definition, it continued to exist with the current lame definition and it will continue to exist regardless of any congressional definition. Once they set the definition it will likely never change and 20 years from now there will be more political battles. Moving this into the realm of the IETF would depoliticize it. Which is why I gave a formula-based definition as an example.
I disagree that it not in their charter. Here's their mission statement:
said by lesopp :The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. These documents include protocol standards, best current practices, and informational documents of various kinds. However, nowhere in the above-quoted charter do they mention policy. They attempt to keep things as tech-oriented and neutral as any standards body is likely to succeed in doing. Taking on policy automatically invalidates neutrality.
--
Everyday, thousands of new cars are delivered to their new owners with poorly-selected radio station presets. |
|
