<html>
<body>
Does anyone know what color <u>white</u> represents on the map on page 23
following figure 19?<br><br>
<br>
At 01:00 PM 1/15/2008 -0700, Michael Orshan wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Interesting. I've been
meaning to send this. New Mexico is last.<br><br>
The FCC recently released their annual "Local Telephone
Competition" report,<br>
which offers insight into the competition for local telephone
service<br>
through 2006. The numbers weren't terribly surprising. CLECs continue
to<br>
lose market share for local loops, and as of December 2006, provided
17.1%<br>
of the 167.5 million local access loops in the U.S. That percentage is
down<br>
from December 2005's number of 17.9%. According to the FCC's numbers,
CLECs<br>
peaked with 19.1% of local access loops in June 2005. Of course local
loops<br>
are declining in general, thanks primarily to wireless substitution.
There<br>
were 175.1 million local loops in December 2005, compared to December
2006's<br>
167.5 million. RBOCs continued forbearance efforts, where they attempt
to<br>
escape competitive mandates, aren't helping either. CLECs highest<br>
penetration of local loops occurred in Rhode Island (46%) and
lowest<br>
penetration occurred in New Mexico (8%). Even though it's a year old,
this<br>
FCC report provides a wealth of information about local telephone<br>
competition and includes extensive data about ILECs, CLECs, and
wireless<br>
carriers.<br><br>
Michael Orshan<br>
<a href="http://www.marsound.com/" eudora="autourl">www.marsound.com</a><br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces@crank.dcn.davis.ca.us<br>
[<a href="mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces@crank.dcn.davis.ca.us" eudora="autourl">mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces@crank.dcn.davis.ca.us</a>]
On Behalf Of Richard<br>
Lowenberg<br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:48 PM<br>
To: 1st-mile-nm@crank.dcn.davis.ca.us<br>
Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Jim Baller Posting<br><br>
Last week, I posted a critique from Public Knowledge, of the
Connect<br>
Kentucky and Connected Nation broadband initiatives. There's
been some<br>
back and forth exchange on this, online. Jim Baller, a
leading telecom.<br>
lawyer, posted the following, yesterday. He takes a most
intelligent<br>
position in his conclusion. (There is a link to the
Baller/Herbst Law<br>
Firm web site on the 1st-Mile web site's Resources page.)<br>
rl<br>
-----<br><br>
AMERICAs GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS<br><br>
Many of you have asked me to comment on<br>
the controversy surrounding ConnectKentucky/<br>
Connected Nation. Here are my first impress-<br>
sions.<br><br>
On this list and elsewhere, I have repeatedly<br>
praised CK/CN for their broadband mapping,<br>
consumer education, and demand aggregation<br>
activities. While some of their claims seemed<br>
exaggerated to me, I gave them the benefit of<br>
the doubt. At the same time, I often expressed<br>
concerns about their limited, incumbent-centric<br>
vision of Americas broadband needs and about<br>
their strong bias against public broadband<br>
initiatives.<br><br>
In his lengthy article, Art Brodsky has now<br>
called many of CK/CNs claims into question.<br>
Brian Meffert has responded on behalf of<br>
CK/CN. Links to both pieces appear below.<br><br>
I hope that Mr. Meffert will provide a more<br>
detailed response, that Mr. Brodsky will<br>
reply, and that the unnamed sources to<br>
which both refer will step forward and<br>
enlighten us about what really happened<br>
in Kentucky. In a matter of this import-<br>
ance, we need to know the facts, and we<br>
should not pre-judge them in either<br>
direction.<br><br>
Wherever the truth may lie, however, my<br>
main concerns about the CK/CN will remain.<br>
In 2002, the US Department of Commerce<br>
issued a report entitled Understanding<br>
Broadband Demand in which it observed<br>
that It is important to note here that the<br>
current generation of broadband technol-<br>
ogies (cable and DSL) may prove woefully<br>
insufficient to carry many of the advanced<br>
applications driving future demand. Today's<br>
broadband will be tomorrow's traffic jam,<br>
and the need for speed will persist as new<br>
applications and services gobble up existing<br>
bandwidth.
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/34e49y" eudora="autourl">http://tinyurl.com/34e49y</a><br><br>
Now, six years later, we can clearly see how<br>
prescient the Department of Commerce<br>
was. While CK/CN are stuck on single-<br>
digit DSL and cable modem speeds, the<br>
worlds leading nations are pushing rapidly<br>
toward speeds of 100 Mbps and 10 Gbps.<br>
Such speeds will completely tip the balance<br>
of innovation and competetiveness in their<br>
favor. Ironically, the bandwidth-rich appli-<br>
cations that these nations will foster would<br>
clog the arteries of the puny systems that<br>
CK/CNs initiatives would produce.<br><br>
To remain a leader in the emerging global<br>
economy, the United States needs a much<br>
bigger vision than CK/CNs. We need to give<br>
all Americans, including those in the rural<br>
areas that CK/CN would serve, candid and<br>
unbiased information about the stakes<br>
involved and about the full range of options<br>
available to their communities. Moreover,<br>
we cannot afford to exclude any potentially<br>
viable initiative public or private -- that<br>
can help the United States fulfill its vision.<br><br>
To be sure, we need reliable map of broad-<br>
band availability as well as speed, quality,<br>
and price. No one disputes this, and many<br>
tools are emerging to achieve this. We also<br>
need better consumer education, including<br>
accurate data about offerings of incumbent<br>
and competitive providers. At the very least,<br>
CK/CN deserve credit for highlighting these<br>
needs.<br><br>
But even more, America needs a national<br>
broadband strategy that is worthy of this<br>
great Nation. This can happen only if all<br>
major stakeholders, including the incum-<br>
bents, candidly acknowledge that America<br>
faces a tremendous challenge, that time is<br>
short, and that the public and private<br>
sectors must work together, in a spirit of<br>
mutual respect, to meet this great chal-<br>
lenge. We cannot allow the CK/CN<br>
controversy to bog us down or divert us<br>
from developing such a strategy.<br><br>
Jim Baller<br><br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------<br>
Richard Lowenberg<br>
P.O.Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504<br>
505-989-9110, 505-603-5200 cell<br><br>
1st-Mile Institute<br>
New Mexico Broadband Initiative<br>
<a href="http://www.1st-mile.com/" eudora="autourl">www.1st-mile.com</a><br>
------------------------------------------------<br><br>
<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
1st-mile-nm mailing list<br>
1st-mile-nm@mailman.dcn.org<br>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm" eudora="autourl">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm</a><br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
1st-mile-nm mailing list<br>
1st-mile-nm@mailman.dcn.org<br>
<a href="http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm" eudora="autourl">http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm</a><br><br>
<br><br>
-- <br>
No virus found in this incoming message.<br>
Checked by AVG Free Edition. <br>
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1224 - Release Date:
1/14/2008 5:39 PM</blockquote></body>
</html>