New minimum speed for US broadband connections
Michael Thomas
mike at mtcc.com
Wed Feb 16 21:46:59 UTC 2022
On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> What is the embarrassment?
That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra
Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just
haven't installed the NID.
Mike
>
> 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
>>> <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/ae191b5f/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list