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

Mon May 30 19:55:24 UTC 2022

Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

Owen

> On May 29, 2022, at 14:10, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/>      <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/20220530/c0c97c61/attachment.html>