FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
John Schiel
jschiel at flowtools.net
Thu Jun 2 02:42:01 UTC 2022
Terrain has a lot to do with the service you can get. Twenty five miles
west of Denver are technically foothills but it is a lot of mountainous
terrain. No company wants to run any cable up there.
--John
On 5/24/22 09:48, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:
>
> I have two fixed wireless Internet connections here. One is 25/5, the
> other is 35/5. There is no cable, no fiber, no cellular, not even DSL
> from the phone company. That is reality in metro Denver, CO
> (actually, the foothills, 25 miles from the state Capitol building).
>
> Regarding Starlink, no, you can’t get it. I paid my deposit a year
> and a half ago and I am still on the waiting list. Every time that I
> get close to the date they promise, they change the promise. Maybe I
> will get Starlink service some time in the future, but, not any time soon.
>
> Oh, yeah, and 25 meg down costs $75 a month. If you want VoIP, that
> is another $20+.
>
> So not only is it slow, it is expensive too.
>
> So yes, there still is a problem, right here in America. And not just
> in the boonies.
>
> Mitch
>
> *From:*NANOG <nanog-bounces+mitch=mtanenbaum.us at nanog.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Matthew Huff
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM
> *To:* Brian Turnbow <b.turnbow at twt.it>; David Bass
> <davidbass570 at gmail.com>; Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>
> *Cc:* nanog at nanog.org
> *Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF
> providers
>
> I grew up in rural Texas where my mother still lives. She has adequate
> speed internet, the biggest issue is reliability. The whole town
> (there is only 1 provider) has an outage for about an hour every week.
> Two weeks ago, there was no internet for 3 days. Cellular service is
> 4G and not even that reliable for data even on the best days.
>
> *From:*NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com at nanog.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Brian Turnbow via NANOG
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:35 AM
> *To:* David Bass <davidbass570 at gmail.com>; Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>
> *Cc:* nanog at nanog.org
> *Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF
> providers
>
> Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better
> broadband.
>
> Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on
> investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit
> speeds
>
> The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays.
>
> On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering
> 2.5Gbps service
>
> Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t
> have a 2.5 nic or router, so now all of the major providers are
> rolling it out.
>
> Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing a 5Gbps service
> and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure
> marketing…
>
> I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family
> rarely do we even get near the limits.
>
> It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and
> get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style
> espresso..
>
> The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all
>
> Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme.
>
> The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or
> even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently
> are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .
>
> The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to
> consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential
> customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor
> upload bandwidth limit.
>
> We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but
> there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and
> we start to see issues.
>
> I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.
>
> Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically
> increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would
> likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at
> this point though.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com> wrote:
>
>
> Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the
> "worst"
> return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural
> and
> tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed
> broadband.
>
> These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to
> serve.
>
> After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated
> proposals
> will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower
> total
> cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for
> the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification]
>
> Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion
> (abandoned,
> incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220601/fc0d8a4e/attachment.html>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list