<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'><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">"</span><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">I must have read different posts."</span></font><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">More likely, a lack of understanding. There's a difference between, "No one should have this" and "the government shouldn't be paying for people to have this at this time." </span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">"fortunate few who happen to be in the</span><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">good locations"</div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Most people live in locations where such a service could be reasonably delivered.</div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">"A larger market is good for business, no?"</div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;">It is, but also good for business is not wasting money.</div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></div><div><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">"Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying</span></div></font><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">degrees."</span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">Keep up with what? Want or need?</span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;"><br></span></font></div><div><br><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><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" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none;"><b>From: </b>"Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk><br><b>To: </b>"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net><br><b>Cc: </b>"Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com>, nanog@nanog.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Monday, June 6, 2022 11:27:54 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers<br><br>On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:<br>> " I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything <br>> more than we have today." <br>> <br>> Few to none are doing that.<br><br>I must have read different posts.<br><br>> Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're<br>> hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop<br>> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about<br>> ourselves. That's too expensive. <br> <br>I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with<br>you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones.<br><br>> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." <br>> <br>> Why should that be desirable? <br><br>I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to<br>everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the<br>good locations? A larger market is good for business, no?<br>Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to<br>the same resources others have.<br><br>> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" <br>> <br>> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough. <br><br>Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying<br>degrees.<br><br>DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up<br>deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle<br>the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling.<br>Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than<br>the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to<br>people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas<br>(lots are installing FTTH now)<br><br>Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is<br>a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in<br>steps up.<br><br>FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to<br>use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz<br>is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises.<br><br>All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly<br>quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in<br>use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever.<br><br>> "If you build it they will come." <br>> <br>> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? <br><br>Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast<br>in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide<br>equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so<br>we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making<br>proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it<br>provides.<br><br>> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the<br>> US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it<br>> would work for most Americans.<br><br>That's really good then, problem solved.<br><br>> Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking<br>> downstream capacity in the regulatory world<br><br>That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the<br>Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the<br>same for upload?<br><br>> they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services<br>> do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change<br>> the regulatory environment over. <br><br>Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too<br>low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. <br><br>If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical?<br><br>brandon<br></div><br></div></div></div></body></html>