<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>*nods*<br><br>If there's not a fiscal reason to not do it (which USF and other give-aways solve), then there's a political reason. Gotta solve that one on a case-by-case basis.<br><br><div><span name="x"></span><br><br>-----<br>Mike Hammett<br>Intelligent Computing Solutions<br>http://www.ics-il.com<br><br>Midwest-IX<br>http://www.midwest-ix.com<span name="x"></span><br></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Aaron Wendel" <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net><br><b>To: </b>nanog@nanog.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:13:52 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections<br><br>The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural <br>America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm <br>that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box. If you believe that broad <br>band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her <br>porn is important enough to subsidize.<br><br>If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a <br>population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make <br>from a financial perspective. The issues that come into play are local <br>red tape, fees, restrictions, etc. Compound that with large providers <br>agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large <br>providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.<br><br>Here's an example for you. North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit <br>fiber to every home in town. It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT&T. <br>Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they <br>don't get the free stuff. Why? Because Spectrum and Charter pay the <br>developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure <br>costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every <br>subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by <br>altering the language in their agreements.<br><br>Aaron<br><br><br>On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:<br>><br>><br>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <br>>> <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone <br>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for <br>>> 200 meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually <br>>> had better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible <br>>> customer service) for years.<br>>><br>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses <br>>> across the street have no option but slow DSL.<br>>><br>>> Where is this example? Or is this strictly hypothetical?<br>><br>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in <br>> silicon valley alone.<br>><br>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where <br>>> it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds. The <br>>> only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the <br>>> map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, <br>>> there's gig fiber there now. I don't remember if he actually got his <br>>> CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.<br>><br>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. <br>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a <br>> population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population <br>> density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at <br>> 3,632/Sq. Mi.).<br>><br>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list <br>> at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.<br>><br>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. <br>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t <br>> have actual data.<br>><br>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that <br>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the <br>> mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…<br>> 1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.<br>> 2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not <br>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family <br>> dwellings.<br>> 3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and <br>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy <br>> in order to boost sales prices.<br>><br>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of <br>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans <br>> underserved.<br>><br>> Owen<br>><br>><br>><br>>><br>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG <br>>> <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:<br>>><br>>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list<br>>> with even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the<br>>> United States knows how hit or miss it can be. An<br>>> apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses<br>>> across the street have no option but slow DSL. Houses could have<br>>> reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across<br>>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is<br>>> prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.<br>>><br>>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of<br>>> provider too. Of course, this is literally changing by the<br>>> minute as new services are continually being added and upgraded.<br>>> *Brandon Svec*<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman<br>>> <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:<br>>><br>>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.<br>>><br>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher<br>>> <beecher@beecher.cc> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Can you provide examples?<br>>><br>>><br>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG<br>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG><br>>><br>>> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just<br>>> outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.<br>>><br>>> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he<br>>> lives in ( Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between<br>>> Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the same 400Mb<br>>> package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of<br>>> Niagara Falls.<br>>><br>>> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of<br>>> connectivity; there is a long way to go all the way<br>>> around regardless. But it is a direct example as you<br>>> asked for.<br>>><br>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman<br>>> <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:<br>>><br>>> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in<br>>> America that are far worse off from a broadband<br>>> perspective than “rural America”.<br>>><br>>> Can you provide examples?<br>>><br>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG<br>>> <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka<br>>> <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:<br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> ><br>>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>>> ><br>>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a<br>>> standardized format using a standardized approach<br>>> to data acquisition and reliable comparable<br>>> results across providers, it could be a very<br>>> useful adjunct to real competition.<br>>> ><br>>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed<br>>> for U.S. broadband connections" actually means,<br>>> fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the<br>>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off<br>>> at your door step.<br>>> ><br>>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying<br>>> that easily goes down the "what color should we<br>>> use for the bike shed" territory, while people in<br>>> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.<br>>> ><br>>> > Mark.<br>>><br>>> ROFLMAO…<br>>><br>>> People in Rural America seem to be doing just<br>>> fine. Most of the ones I know at least have GPON<br>>> or better.<br>>><br>>> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills<br>>> itself as “The Capital of Silicon Valley”, the<br>>> best I can get is Comcast (which does finally<br>>> purport to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.<br>>><br>>> Yes, anything involving the federal government<br>>> will get the full bike shed treatment no matter<br>>> what we do.<br>>><br>>> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in<br>>> America that are far worse off from a broadband<br>>> perspective than “rural America”.<br>>><br>>> Owen<br>>><br>><br><br>-- <br>================================================================<br>Aaron Wendel<br>Chief Technical Officer<br>Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)<br>(816)550-9030<br>http://www.wholesaleinternet.com<br>================================================================<br><br></div><br></div></body></html>