| Good I'm glad that he wants specifics. He won't be satisfied with the vague, inconsequential "plans" lawyers of big business are so fond of espousing. |
|
| he may want specifics, but he certainly doesn't articulate any. There an a number of ways to look at providers shortcomings. All he has to do is browse this thing called the Internet to look for a few ideas. [/sigh]
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to sonicmerlin
Heres a plan for him (very specific too)
run 1,000 10G fiber ethernet cables to every town (setup into a nationwide mesh topology with regional transit sites
setup a CRS-1 in each town to make use of the 10TB/sec of data
run 1G fiber to every home
then offer 100/100 internet service with local-to-local of 1G
then I think your'd have a good start
next make the locations of the CRS-1's into IXP's and split the 1,000 fibers between multiple CRS-1's
setup Peering agreements with ISP's that have a local presence
now you have super amazing fast internet service that everyone (except the incumbents) will be happy about
next add internet needed services
ie a cluster of DNS servers (start with one per region then expand)
next provide a set of standards for QOS (based on DSCP) in such a way that it would only help and that taking advantage of it would be pointless |
|
| These are actually good suggestions. However, it would leave nothing for any ISP to complain about for a great number of years, that's why this would never be accepted.
We all fail to realize that providing a good service is not what these companies are in business to do. What they ARE unfortunately in business to do is provide the highest return on company stock prices to the investors by using the cheapest means and the lowest upkeep. |
|
|
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | reply to DarkLogix
But that'd be expensive. Like, almost 10% of what they spent bailing out the banks!!!1! |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Do you really think the cost of anything will deter this administration from giving more money for political payback, claiming it will prevent the country from going bankrupt.  |
|
 NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | So you would of let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt?
If that happened you'd bee looking at 20-30% unemployment across the board, no to mention if our dollar tanks and the oil countries decide to use the Euro as the new standard, we would be doubly screwed.
Last I checked my 401k is actually back into the black, no thanks to Bush or any other RepubliCONS.
Just love to see the other side complain on how he's having to clean up their mess. It's like a kid who spilled the milk telling his mother how to mop.
--
Play a Death Knight?
www.theebonhold.com |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:run 1,000 10G fiber ethernet cables to every town (setup into a nationwide mesh topology with regional transit sites This already exists -- they're called backbone carriers. Only it's not 10G, it's multiple of 40G/100G.
said by DarkLogix:setup a CRS-1 in each town to make use of the 10TB/sec of data • The CRS is a platform designed for aggregation of high capacity / channelized circuits. The queuing structure on the platform is designed for carrier MPLS services and core routing functionality. It doesn't have the port capacity even in a separated multi-chassis configuration with the intermediate S2 stage fiber shelf to tackle even 1% of the edge attachment you describe.
• The CRS is a power hungry platform that generates insane amounts of heat. If we didn't have an energy crisis before, deploying an army of these will help us down that path as we struggle to find ways to both power and cool the infrastructure.
• Each CRS shelf rolls in at low 7 figures when fully configured.
It's not even close to being the right hardware for the job. It would be like assembling a football team of only quaterbacks, or fighting a war with no army, no navy, and no air force except an entire fleet of B2 bombers.
On the plus side, this has all the things we love about government programs: it would be ridiculously expensive, would fail to meet its overall objectives by being the wrong solution to the problem, and would create a long-term burden for maintaining the infrastructure once you've locked yourself into this design. |
|
| reply to NOCMan
...GM did go bankrupt, and they're already back in business. |
|
