Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the maintenance of the infrastructure required to deliver those speeds exceeds what you'd get, IE: no return.
What's wrong with right-sizing the infrastructure? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "james cutler" <[email protected]> To: "Mike Hammett" <[email protected]> Cc: "Christopher Morrow" <[email protected]>, "nanog list" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:13:36 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett < [email protected] > wrote: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares. Of course, this is because the “industry” is driven short term profits and can not vision the eventual dispersion of remote workers begun in earnest about a year and which could result in longer term return on investment.
