New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed Feb 16 21:57:06 UTC 2022

Crap, slow internet options in the heart of Silicon Valley, I think..

https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov

You can look around the billion dollar football stadium and international
airport and see neighborhoods with 1-3Mbps only.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:38 PM Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
wrote:

> 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/f39bb6c4/attachment.html>