> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Paetzel [mailto:josh at tcbug.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:22 AM > > Chuck Cole wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Josh Paetzel [mailto:josh at tcbug.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:47 AM > > > > > > And if you think fiber isn't proprietary you ought to > take a look at > > > what companies like Verizon are doing with FIOS...including their > > > company policy of pulling out the copper to your house after > > > installing FIOS, of not allowing you to roll back service > to copper, > > > and oh fiber isn't covered by the same laws as copper, > they are under > > > no compulsion to allow anyone else to provide you service. > > > > > > There are no panaceas. > > > > ??? Your comment is a non-sequitur, and I said nothing at all about > > panaceas or absence of proprietary differences. I only said that > > different carriers use fibers, not that all security layers were > > identical. My comment about both phone companies and cable > companies > > using fiber, and planning to-the-house fiber connections is > like saying > > "most TCLUGers can drive cars". You previously stated that cable > > service and DSL service would not use fiber media, and that > seemed kinda > > naive to me. > > > > When did I say that? This is my first post to the thread. You said that in your text that I quoted in your previous post. That was your second post that you call your first. > While fiber media is standard, and there are several different types, > the laws that cover providing service over it are different than the > laws that cover providing service over copper phone lines. The > regulation that comes along with CLEG is what allows you the freedom > to choose your DSL provider over your copper phone lines. Fiber isn't > covered by that, and in fact verizon is going so far as to rip up the > copper to people's homes when they install FIOS and refusing to > reinstall it. Once that's happened you are completely and totally in > bed with them, they are not legally obligated in any way to allow > anyone else to provide service to you over the fiber drop to your > house. Interesting point, but that's not different from what many of the wire-to-home cases are. Apple Valley areas covered by Frontier can't get a different DSL on that wire, only Frontier's, but they bundle a few others as ISP options now. Maybe there's a legal way to prevent having the copper removed if that in fact provides options not available via fiber. Not clear this is a big deal or a new situation in practical terms. > > This digression had little significance for the municipal wireless > > issues, and you made no comment for my concern on the > likely impact of > > municipal wireless on free hotspots. I think the municipal wireless > > will require geographicly specific subscriptions like > Chaska does, and > > that would become a severe restriction to individual > roaming freedom. > > If that is the case, then I think municipal wireless is a > very, very bad > > thing. > > > > Chuck > > > > You might want to consider my reply wasn't specifically targetted at > you...there are other people participating in the thread as well. If you aren't responding to me and what I said, don't show my name and continue as if you are responding to me. Make your own independent comments and thread. Nobody else has participated since you jumped in. Let's let your media-to-the-house concerns go into another thread (or die here) and look for any further comments on wireless to continue. I'm concerned that municipal wireless may be a very bad thing because of its impact on free WiFi spots and areas. Chuck Chuck