New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed Feb 16 19:58:11 UTC 2022

Same issues in NYC. I'm in the bay area burbs and at least once a month get
marketing from AT&T or Sonic about FTTH that stops 2 doors away. The bonded
DSL alternative is... Functional but a couple times more expensive than my
neighbors pay.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/verizon-wiring-up-500k-homes-with-fios-to-settle-years-long-fight-with-nyc/

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 10:38 AM Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:

> *nods*
>
> If there's not a fiscal reason to not do it (which USF and other
> give-aways solve), then there's a political reason. Gotta solve that one on
> a case-by-case basis.
>
>
>
> -----
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Aaron Wendel" <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>
> *To: *nanog at nanog.org
> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:13:52 PM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural
> America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm
> that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad
> band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her
> porn is important enough to subsidize.
>
> If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a
> population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make
> from a financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local
> red tape, fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers
> agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large
> providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.
>
> Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit
> fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT&T.
> Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they
> don't get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the
> developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure
> costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every
> subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by
> altering the language in their agreements.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG 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
> >>
> >
>
> --
> ================================================================
> Aaron Wendel
> Chief Technical Officer
> Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
> (816)550-9030
> http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
> ================================================================
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220216/c2fe2183/attachment.html>