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

Sun May 29 21:10:05 UTC 2022

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3
operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with
multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no
intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream
asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per
home.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, 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. ****
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20220529/88ee672b/attachment.html>