New minimum speed for US broadband connections
nanog at ics-il.net
Sat May 29 02:41:32 UTC 2021
If we keep going down this road, we'll be siphoning up grant dollars away from communities that actually need it, sending it to communities with fake needs. There are a lot of parallels to other parts of society with people telling others what they should need, but not reflected in reality.
"Why would you want to?"
There aren't unlimited resources. Allocate them properly.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB at SherwoodOregon.gov>
To: "Mike Lyon" <mike.lyon at gmail.com>, "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" <lb at 6by7.net>
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 6:08:35 PM
Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
It’s not about being lucky, it’s that the grant dollars are being siphoned up by folks providing a mediocre product. There are fiber providers that can make a rural build pencil if they were eligible. The point of the definition is to encourage building a better product.
To your previous question about usage, I took a quick look at one of my smaller GPON shelves and most times the download to upload ratio is roughly 4 to 1 across all the subs on that shelf. That’s a healthy upload by itself, but there was a 5 minute datapoint just now where the upload spiked to about triple the download rate. Someone did a huge upload, and got it over and done with quick. Yes people can live with less bandwidth, but why would you want to?
The feedback I hear from more and more customers with regards to upload is teleconferencing for work/school and IOT type devices uploading to the cloud….
From: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb at 6by7.net>
Cc: Brandon Price <PriceB at SherwoodOregon.gov>; NANOG Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.
Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUUUUUGE amount of areas that aren't lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.
So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to have fiber?
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE < lb at 6by7.net > wrote:
Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.lyon at gmail.com > wrote:
> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?
Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and exploring.
Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap.
(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)
8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.
That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.
Are you ready?
Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC
lb at 6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ
mike.lyon at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG