New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed Jun 2 03:50:30 UTC 2021

I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling.

Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median
latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP
code to the top 10 websites), data cap info, and bottom line price
including all unavoidable fees.

ISP-provided WiFi routers would only be included in the bottom line price
if the ISP requires said WiFi routers as mandatory CPE.

---
Also, all this talk about higher minimum downstream and upstream bandwidth
is moot if simple data caps remain in place. Scrap simple data caps,
especially those that do not recognize that bandwidth availability varies
throughout the day.

An alternative to simple data caps is to apply destination-agnostic
bandwidth shaping during peak usage periods on the ISP's network, with the
heaviest generators of on-peak traffic being deprioritized. This still
allows for an ISP to offer various tiers of service that have different
data bucket sizes. These might range from a discount tier of 'always
deprioritized during peaks' to a default tier of 'deprioritized after 1 TB
of monthly data transfer during peaks' to a premium tier of 'never
deprioritized during peaks'.

---
Grants: hold recipients of USF or other build-out grant money accountable.
That could mean incentives for build outs that are future-proof on the
scale of decades. An incentive that pays per foot, for conduit and fiber
installed in previously unserved areas, if that conduit actually serves the
properties along the route.

Empty conduit is incredibly future proof. I have seen fiber installs being
placed in orange plastic tubing, which means even if some new form of fiber
is needed later, exchanging the fiber in the conduit will be possible
without requiring more trenching or drilling.

---
On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied
that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a
formula. An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to
80% of the population is the definition of broadband. When 80% of the
population has access to 100/100 Mbps home service, then 100/100 becomes
the benchmark. When 80% of the population has access to 1/1 Gbps home
service, then 1/1 becomes the benchmark. Areas that don't have service that
meets the benchmark would be eligible for future-proof build-out
incentives, with incentives exponentially increasing as the area falls
further and further behind the benchmark. With 100/100 Mbps as the
benchmark, areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 1.5 Mbps/384k DSL
should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher priority if the
benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps.

There also needs to be a way for properties to report 'I am not being
served'. This combined with clawbacks is a way to assure claimed build-out
funds don't leave service gaps in places build-out funds were spent.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 20:28 Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:48 PM Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -0000, scott said:
>> > $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years.
>>
>> > On the high side: 14 years.
>>
>> Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even.
>>
>> The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long
>> break-even
>> schedule when short-term profits get emphasized.  Telcos strung a lot of
>> copper
>> when they were assured of multiple decades of returns - and even *then*
>> getting
>> it out to rural areas required providing more incentive....
>>
>
> (going to be pretty us-centric, sorry 'not use folks', also this isn't
> about valdis's message directly)
> There's a bunch of discussion which seems to sideline 'most of the
> population' and then
> the conversation ratholes on talk about folk that are not grouped
> together closely (living in cities/towns).
> I think this is a good example of: "Perfect is the enemy of the good" in
> that there are a whole
> bunch, 82% or so[1], of folk live 'in cities' (or near enough) as of 2019.
> If the 'new' standard is 100/100, that'd be perfectly servicable and
> deployable to
> 82% of the population.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to either:
>   1) not offer subsidies to city-centric deployments (or pro-rate those)
>   2) get return on the longer-haul 'not city' deployments via slightly
> higher costs elsewhere?
>        (or shift the subisidies to cover the rural deployments more
> completely?)
>
> Yes 'telco' folk will have to play ball, but also they get to keep their
> 'we do broadband' marketting..
> Holding back ~80% of the population because you can't sort the other 20%
> out (or a large portion of that 20%)
> in a sane manner sure seems shortsighted. I get that trenching fiber down
> 'state-route-foobar' is hard, and costly,
> but throwing up your hand and declaring that 'no one needs XXX mbps' is
> more than just a little obstructionist.
>
>
>
> 1:
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/269967/urbanization-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=The%20statistic%20shows%20the%20degree,in%20cities%20and%20urban%20areas
> .
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210601/a85311dc/attachment.html>