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

Mike Hammett nanog at ics-il.net
Mon Jun 6 20:54:43 UTC 2022


" I must have read different posts." 




More likely, a lack of understanding. There's a difference between, "No one should have this" and "the government shouldn't be paying for people to have this at this time." 




"fortunate few who happen to be in the 
good locations" 


Most people live in locations where such a service could be reasonably delivered. 




"A larger market is good for business, no?" 


It is, but also good for business is not wasting money. 




"Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying 
degrees." 


Keep up with what? Want or need? 










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

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

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

From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net> 
Cc: "Michael Thomas" <mike at mtcc.com>, nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:27:54 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> " I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
> more than we have today." 
> 
> Few to none are doing that. 

I must have read different posts. 

> Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're 
> hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop 
> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about 
> ourselves. That's too expensive. 

I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with 
you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones. 

> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." 
> 
> Why should that be desirable? 

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to 
everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the 
good locations? A larger market is good for business, no? 
Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to 
the same resources others have. 

> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" 
> 
> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough. 

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying 
degrees. 

DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up 
deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle 
the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling. 
Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than 
the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to 
people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas 
(lots are installing FTTH now) 

Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is 
a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in 
steps up. 

FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to 
use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz 
is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises. 

All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly 
quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in 
use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever. 

> "If you build it they will come." 
> 
> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? 

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast 
in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide 
equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so 
we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making 
proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it 
provides. 

> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the 
> US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it 
> would work for most Americans. 

That's really good then, problem solved. 

> Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking 
> downstream capacity in the regulatory world 

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the 
Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the 
same for upload? 

> they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services 
> do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change 
> the regulatory environment over. 

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too 
low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. 

If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical? 

brandon 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220606/67f30a45/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list