FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Mon Jun 6 15:19:03 UTC 2022

If you want to argue that a bigger number is better, sure. 

However, regulatory definitions and funding has real meaning. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Casey Russell via NANOG" <nanog at nanog.org> 
To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog at nanog.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 

For a long time now... 

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak 
bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit 
with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload 
speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner 
firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which 
I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 
8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 
50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications. 

One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not seconds. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220606/87d4317e/attachment.html>