🚀 go-pugleaf

Interesting....
Hmmmmm
I was thinking Perhaps a CO.....
Duhh
A 100 Meg Fiber pipe can run an unmaned CO quite nicely.

Someguys 0.02$

burns <burnsmacdonald@home.com> wrote in message
news:38E4C62E.B4AE2E1A@home.com...
> Rob & Theresa Edmunds wrote:
> >
> > Matt Byrd <matt_byrd@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:8c06ki$ddg$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > I was down-town recently (Bank & Cooper) and I watched some
contractors
> > > laying a fibre-optic line into a small 3 floor building on Cooper
Street
> > > at the sotheast corner of Bank & Cooper. It looked like a fairly large
> > > strand, so any guesses of who could need a big fibre connection, my
> > > guess is with ADSL, xDSL, ATM it would have to be a very large pipe,
> > > otherwise why bother! My question is who needs that amount of
bandwidth
> > > in a nothing little building? I know 400 Cooper had at least a 100 Meg
> > > pipe, and this pipe looked the same? Any ideas? The building directory
> > > listed only a few small companies, a barber shop and a Dojo. Did I
find
> > > a secret government installation?
>
> There are exceptions but, in general, you might be surprised at how
> small a bandwidth most government installations are forced to use. A
> lot of it has to do with budget constraints, aging infrastructure,
> negative inertia, a long and painfully bureacratic justification and
> approval process, plus a pervasive minimalist mentality. This extends
> to other aspects as well. Believe it or not, virtually all the desktop
> systems in the division responsible for developing new Defence
> department IT projects are currently P166's running W95.
>
> The view of the government blowing money on huge bandwidths and
> cutting edge technology may be true south of the border, but in Canada
> our politicians don't fund public service spending on technololgy to
> the same extent. Gains are made in small nibbles and by the time it is
> approved, it is generally insufficient and obsolete. Nowadays almost
> any corporate office is using technology more current than that used
> by much of the government. This raises a couple of fairly broad, but
> important, questions:
>
> * If government is not able to effectively exploit current technology
> for itself, can it competently set policies to nurture and partner the
> development of the high tech industry in this country?
>
> * Is the technology culture in the government relevant to where the
> industry is and where it is headed?
>
> Perhaps some of that HRDC $Billion should have gone to investing in
> technology for our future?
>
> --
> burns
>
> ----------------------------------
> I speak for no-one but myself.