[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - LUS

[mailtonick]

Good point on the morality police, especially with the conservatives
controlling the major branches now.
However, the point that stick out for me is this:
        "It's now the reference point for what's possible."
Charter/comcast/att have questions to answer on price and service.

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> http://blog.lafayetteprofiber.com/2009/06/nifty-new-intranet-speed-test.html
> > Note the graphs.  The LUSFiber system
> > delivers rock hard performance despite its
> > modest prices -  $58 a month for 50 Mbps
> > full duplex.  100 Mbps available, also full
> > duplex.
> > Verizon and AT&T sued to try to stop the
> > project.  Now, a precedent has been set,
> > and the bigger damage might be all the
> > attention LUSFiber is getting.  It's now the
> > reference point for what's possible.
> > And what's possible is a whole lot cheaper
> > than the big players are suggesting. Comcast
> > just came out with a 100 Mbps down, 10 Mbps
> > up service tier, and it's over $400 a month.
> > Hardly full duplex, and definitely not cheap.
> > Yes, T1 lines were over $1,000 a month not
> > so many years ago.  But technology has moved
> > on, and LUSFiber shows just how much.
> > For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUSFiber
> >   -- Bob
>
> How many people have paid for that system, versus how many people get
> service? In other words, who's subsidizing it so who else can use it
> cheaply?
>
> WP page says LUSFiber is municipally owned. Normally, things which are
> funded by government entities can be explicitly regulated by those
> entities, and have those regulations backed by their police force. If
> I have no reasonable alternative for a given service level than
> LUSFiber, that puts me at the mercy of their regulations. What if they
> decided they wanted a network-backed morality system like
> Australia?[1]
>
> It also says that LUSFiber is a subsidiary of a local utility company.
> Can you say "municipally-granted monopoly"? You can blame *that* for
> why Comcast is so large; Comcast is built on a coax infrastructure
> built by dozens of cable companies which had municipally-granted
> monopolies in their local area.
>
> The combination of municipally-granted monopolies and utility
> companies reminds me of a recent story in West Michigan where a guy
> was {fined|evicted|home condemned} (I don't recall which) because he
> wasn't attached to municipal utilities in his area. It wasn't that his
> home was unsanitary, unsafe, or polluting nearby areas, he just wasn't
> attached to the grid, law required that he be attached to the grid,
> and so he got in trouble.
>
> Also, do you know why T1 lines are so expensive? They're regulated.
> You get a kickass SLA to go along with that 1.544Mb/s connection, and
> someone will be woken in the middle of the night to repair it for you
> if it goes down. *That* costs. Even if he wasn't unionized, the guy
> you woke at 2AM because your T1 went down wouldn't charge unskilled
> labor rates.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia
>
> --
> :wq
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> _______________________________________________
> grlug mailing list
> grlug at grlug.org
> http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://shinobu.grlug.org/pipermail/grlug/attachments/20110217/0faf97eb/attachment-0001.html>