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

Kauto Huopio kauto at huopio.fi
Mon Jun 6 21:22:46 UTC 2022


+1 on symmetrical connections. On this corner of the planet many
(incumbent) ISPs which provide fiber service, throttle the uplink like
100/10 Mbit/s. There is no technical reason for the uplink limitation - the
ISPs are protecting their higher-revenue business label services. 10 Mbit/s
uplink is OK for a (single-person) remote working, but pushing backups or
using network drives from work is a quite a sluggish affair. I for one
would not use the uplink to host servers at home, but modern day remote
working has clear needs. Now, the difference of the cost of optics and at
least CPE side electronics is really minimal between gigabit and 100
Mbit/s. I've had a gigabit cable-based connectivity for couple of months on
my home far away from home and it is really nice when you do system
upgrades and other tasks which require moving hundreads of megabytes to
several G. Again, the needs are bursty.

--Kauto

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:01 AM Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz at sctcweb.com> wrote:

> I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we
> do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc...
> there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that
> upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass <davidbass570 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>
>
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
>
>    <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>     [image:
> https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/]
> <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/>
> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>
> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **** This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission. ****
>


-- 
Kauto Huopio - kauto at huopio.fi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220607/e718ea28/attachment.html>


More information about the NANOG mailing list