New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed Feb 16 21:36:22 UTC 2022

What is the embarrassment?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

>
> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
> potentially be causation.
>
> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they
> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only
> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's
> really an embarrassment.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>> for years.
>>
>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>
>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>
>>
>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
>> valley alone.
>>
>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>> but there's fiber there now.
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
>> data.
>>
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>> dwellings.
>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>> order to boost sales prices.
>>
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>> underserved.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20220216/6cff8bcf/attachment.html>