sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds

Fri Dec 1 21:45:06 UTC 2023

Unfortunately from my experience it's usually because the small local ISPs
don't have the resources to understand IPv6, and may be using equipment
generations old that may not support IPv6. It's the large ISPs that don't
want to do it because it would increase their operational costs and require
upgrades to operational systems and they see no new revenue associated.

Shane

On Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:23 PM Daniel Marks via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
wrote:

> Yea I’d like to see mandated IPv6 if ISPs want government money, around
> here an IPv4 only ISP won a government contract a while back for res fiber
> deployment and the last I heard from an acquaintance I spoke to over there
> they are planning to stuff the entire city behind a /24 with no upcoming
> plans to enable v6 (but of course you can get your own IP if you pay more).
>
> I’m not a conspiracy theorist but sometimes it feels like some smaller
> ISPs are intentionally not deploying v6 so they can get customers to
> upgrade to more expensive plans for the luxury of *checks notes* not
> getting rate limited.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 1, 2023, at 15:41, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:55 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
> >>
> >> Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in
> flux...
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > You start off with a decent thesis - beyond 100mbps there really isn't
> > any difference in capability, not for residential use. Just a
> > difference in how quickly some tasks complete. It's not like the
> > difference between 768kbps and 10 mbps where one does streaming video
> > and conferencing while the other does not.
> >
> > But then you get lost in latency. Latency is important but it's only
> > one in a laundry list of things that make the difference between
> > quality and trash in Internet services.
> >
> > * Packet loss.
> >
> > * Service outages. I have a buddy whose phone line has been out for
> > days four times this year. His ILEC neither wants to maintain the
> > copper lines nor install fiber that deep in the woods, so they keep
> > doing mediocre repairs to the infrastructure that don't hold up.
> >
> > * Incomplete connectivity (e.g. Cogent and IPv6).
> >
> > Personally, I'd love to see rulemaking to the effect that only folks
> > with -open- peering policies are eligible for government funds and
> > contracts. But that's my pet peeve, like latency is yours. And if I
> > pitch that, it'll rightly be seen as a pet issue.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > William Herrin
> > bill at herrin.us
> > https://bill.herrin.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20231201/3aff4edb/attachment.html>