New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Sat May 29 08:57:25 UTC 2021

I agree with Dan.

In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) .

As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. 

But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site backups or for friends/customers .... I don't know what I'd do without it !   

And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV is long gone ...  I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house streaming 4K and nobody notices.

I would never, ever, go back to DSL.  Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd still pay it.

Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the minimum for 2021 should be 1/1.  Anything less than that is a bit silly and will soon be obsolete.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka <mrsyeltzin at gmail.com> wrote:

> But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike.   Brandon's ISP can provide that service.
>
> So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on population density, last mile tech, etc?
>
> I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. 
>
> Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits per second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move files I can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021.
>
> Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be sustained throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. 
>
> Dan
>
> (end)
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
>
> > That's not based in any kind of reality.
> >
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB at SherwoodOregon.gov>
> > To: "Sean Donelan" <sean at donelan.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM
> > Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> >
> > 100/100 minimum for sure.
> >
> > In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.
> >
> > We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.
> >
> > I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...  
> >
> > Brandon Price
> > Senior Network Engineer
> > City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan
> > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
> > To: 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.
> >
> > On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> > > At least 100/100.
> > >
> > > We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.
> >
> > At $50/month or less?
> >
> > Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.