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

David Bass davidbass570 at gmail.com
Tue May 24 11:34:23 UTC 2022

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

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

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/20220524/d333ab6e/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list