<div dir="auto"><div>That is North Dakota, not population centers. Click the link.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living? That's a poor excuse for data.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">>These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a couple places?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">>but this is a problem that is more political than technical.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Strong disagreement here. What makes you say this?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson <<a href="mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us">brian.johnson@netgeek.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy LECs operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops which device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the most cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of the larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build out these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.<div><br></div><div>I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but this is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we are more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear to be more interested in political wins.<div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman <<a href="mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">josh@imaginenetworksllc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think the public 477 is 2 years? behind) What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?<div><br></div><div><a href="https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota</a></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson <<a href="mailto:brian.johnson@netgeek.us" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">brian.johnson@netgeek.us</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?<div><br></div><div>I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. <br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman <<a href="mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">josh@imaginenetworksllc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr">Ryan,<div><br></div><div>This discussion was in regards to urban areas.</div><div><br></div><div>Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural area based on your description. It looks like there are absolutely a massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless. Since it sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there. At $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a viable business plan to you?</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon <<a href="mailto:ryan@u13.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ryan@u13.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mike@mtcc.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div><p><br>
</p>
<div>On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">What is the embarrassment?</div>
</blockquote><p>That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly
behind the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the
rural Sierra Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have
it, they just haven't installed the NID. <br>
</p><p>Mike<br>
</p><p><br></p></div></div></blockquote><div>I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar enough. I am in Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA. My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available). <div><br></div><div>Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and developer-built communities have almost zero options.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense connectivity in the world. Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.<br><div><br></div><div>Ryan</div></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>
<br></div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28
PM Michael Thomas <<a href="mailto:mike@mtcc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mike@mtcc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><p><br>
</p>
<div>On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I'll once again please ask for specific
examples as I continue to see the generic "it isn't in
some parts of San Jose".
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm
all but certain this has a lot to do with California
and its extraordinarily complicated and near
impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status. This
makes competition pretty much impossible and makes the
costs of operating one extraordinarily high. I'm
obviously not going to be one that claims that
government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain
correlation which could potentially be causation.</div>
</div>
</blockquote><p>Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and
other areas, but they are really small. Comcast can't be
bothered that I've ever heard. The only other real
alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
It's really an embarrassment. <br>
</p><p>Mike<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 16, 2022
at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
<<a href="mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">josh@imaginenetworksllc.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Because literally every case
I've seen along these lines is someone
complaining about the coax connection is
"only 100 meg when I pay for 200 meg".
Comcast was the most hated company and yet
they factually had better speeds (possibly
in part to their subjectively terrible
customer service) for years.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>An apartment building could have
cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
street have no option but slow DSL.</div>
<div><br>
Where is this example? Or is this
strictly hypothetical?<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of
such examples in silicon valley alone.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>I am not seeing any examples,
anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
what most consider to be in town/urban
and poor speeds. The only one that was
close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when
I saw the map I wouldn't consider that
in town (could be wrong) but again,
there's gig fiber there now. I don't
remember if he actually got his CLEC, or
why that matters, but there's fiber
there now.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San
Jose “not in town”. It’s literally #11 in the
largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a
population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile
(compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Similar conditions exist in parts of Los
Angeles, #2 on the same list at 3,985,516
(3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I speak of California because it’s where I have
the most information. I’m sure this situation
exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
actual data.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The simple reality is that there are three sets
of incentives that utilities tend to chase and
neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and
sub-urban parts of America…</div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>USF
— Mostly supports rural deployments.</div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Extreme
High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense
arrays, Not areas of town houses, smaller
apartment complexes, or single family dwellings.</div>
<div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>3.<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Neighborhoods
full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently
and where the developers would literally pay the
utilities to pre-deploy in order to boost sales
prices.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Outside of those incentives, there’s very
little actual deployment of broadband
improvements, leaving vast quantities of average
Americans underserved.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri,
Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via
NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nanog@nanog.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">What
is the point of these anecdotes?
Surely anyone on this list with even a
passing knowledge of the broadband
landscape in the United States knows
how hit or miss it can be. An
apartment building could have cheap 1G
fiber and the houses across the street
have no option but slow DSL. Houses
could have reliable high speed cable
internet, but the office park across
the field has no such choice because
the buildout cost is prohibitively
high to get fiber, etc.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace">There
are plenty of places with only one or
two choices of provider too. Of
course, this is literally changing by
the minute as new services are
continually being added and upgraded.</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<table style="font-size:12.8px" width="300" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong><font>Brandon
Svec</font></strong><font> </font><font><br>
</font><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh
Luthman <<a href="mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">josh@imaginenetworksllc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">OK the one example you
provided has gigabit fiber though.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom
Beecher <<a href="mailto:beecher@beecher.cc" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">beecher@beecher.cc</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Can
you provide examples?<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our good friend Jared could
only get 1.5M DSL living just
outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he
had to start his own CLEC. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I have friends in
significantly more rural areas
than he lives in ( Niagara and
Orleans county NYS , between
Niagara Falls and Rochester )
who have the same 400Mb
package from Spectrum that I
do, living in the City of
Niagara Falls. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is not to say that
rural America is a mecca of
connectivity; there is a long
way to go all the way around
regardless. But it is a direct
example as you asked for. </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb
10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh
Luthman <<a href="mailto:josh@imaginenetworksllc.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">josh@imaginenetworksllc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">>There are
plenty of urban and suburban
areas in America that are
far worse off from a
broadband perspective than
“rural America”.<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can you provide
examples?</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu,
Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM
Owen DeLong via NANOG <<a href="mailto:nanog@nanog.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nanog@nanog.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On Jun 2, 2021, at
02:10 , Mark Tinka <<a href="mailto:mark@tinka.africa" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mark@tinka.africa</a>>
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
standardized format using
a standardized approach to
data acquisition and
reliable comparable
results across providers,
it could be a very useful
adjunct to real
competition.<br>
> <br>
> If we can't even
agree on what "minimum
speed for U.S. broadband
connections" actually
means, fat chance having a
"nutritional facts" at the
back of the "Internet in a
tea cup" dropped off at
your door step.<br>
> <br>
> I'm not saying it's
not useful, I'm just
saying that easily goes
down the "what color
should we use for the bike
shed" territory, while
people in 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
fine. Most of the ones I
know at least have GPON or
better.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, here in San
Jose, a city that bills
itself as “The Capital of
Silicon Valley”, the best
I can get is Comcast
(which does finally
purport to be Gig down),
but rarely delivers that.<br>
<br>
Yes, anything involving
the federal government
will get the full bike
shed treatment no matter
what we do.<br>
<br>
There are plenty of urban
and suburban areas in
America that are far worse
off from a broadband
perspective than “rural
America”.<br>
<br>
Owen<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>