New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Fri Feb 11 21:05:04 UTC 2022

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even
a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows
how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could
have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the
field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to
get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG
>>
>> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
>> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>>
>> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
>> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
>> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
>> Niagara Falls.
>>
>> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
>> is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
>> example as you asked for.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>>
>>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark at tinka.africa> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
>>>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
>>>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>>>> >
>>>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
>>>> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the
>>>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down
>>>> the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in
>>>> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>>>> >
>>>> > Mark.
>>>>
>>>> ROFLMAO…
>>>>
>>>> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
>>>> know at least have GPON or better.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital
>>>> of Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally
>>>> purport to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike
>>>> shed treatment no matter what we do.
>>>>
>>>> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>>>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>>>
>>>> Owen
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220211/0c92ff0e/attachment.html>