There are millions of people that have 0 mbps (or dialup, satellite, etc) and they can't function day to day like everyone else in town.
Changing the definition of broadband to yet again, to a faster speed will do nothing for these people except slow the pace at which they get connectivity. Why do people "in town" need to go from 25/3 to 100/10 when we really should be focusing on the people with nothing? Changing the definition to 100/100 kills every technology except for fiber. Every single cable internet connection suddenly becomes "not internet". Do we really want another AT&T that ends up with all of the primary last mile technology to all the major cities again? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Chris Adams (IT) <chris.ad...@ung.edu> wrote: > I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change > the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chris Adams > > > > *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung....@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of > *Jason Canady > *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM > *To:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from *outside the University of North > Georgia.* Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the > sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is > fraudulent, please forward to s...@ung.edu > <s...@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT Service Desk > at 706-864-1922. > > I second Mike. > > > > On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I don't think it needs to change. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=> > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=> > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Sean Donelan" <s...@donelan.com> <s...@donelan.com> > *To: *nanog@nanog.org > *Sent: *Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM > *Subject: *New minimum speed for US broadband connections > > > What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.? > > > This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year > > year speed > > 1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than > dialup/ISDN speeds) > > 2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service > providers had 128 kbps upload) > > 2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up > > 2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) > 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless) > > 2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps) > > Not only in major cities, but also rural areas > > Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't > advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must > deliver better service. > > > >