New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Mon Feb 28 21:29:56 UTC 2022

According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think
the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?

https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson at netgeek.us>
wrote:

> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural
> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH
> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
>
> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate.
>
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
>
> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural
> area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a
> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it
> sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's
> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At
> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a
> viable business plan to you?
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon <ryan at u13.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar
>> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>>  My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which
>> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).
>>
>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile
>> down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and
>> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>>
>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense
>> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from
>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/20220228/74f3585d/attachment.html>