New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Josh Luthman josh at imaginenetworksllc.com
Wed Jun 2 13:34:53 UTC 2021


Haudy,

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338708A1.pdf

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:50 PM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
wrote:

> 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/20210602/bec31f52/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list