New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Mon Feb 28 22:44:52 UTC 2022

That is North Dakota, not population centers.  Click the link.

You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living?  That's a poor
excuse for data.

>These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.

Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a
couple places?

>but this is a problem that is more political than technical.

Strong disagreement here.  What makes you say this?

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson at netgeek.us>
wrote:

> I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy
> LECs operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops
> which device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the
> most cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of
> the larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build
> out these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should
> believe them.
>
> I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but
> this is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we
> are more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear
> to be more interested in political wins.
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman <josh at imaginenetworksllc.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/cecf4c22/attachment.html>