Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Don Fanning]

Wow...  Talk about a topic that will start a hornet's nest between
engineers and management every time if "money were no object".  It's sort
of like airlines asking "what should be the seat width of our cabins?"
You're gonna get some heated responses.

Just jumping into this thread after scanning over the general sentiments, I
see people who are alphageeks and those who look at everything
pragmatically.  Neither is wrong, but I agree with some that it's the wrong
question to be asking.  I've seen customer sentiment in general with cable
ISP's that the upstream is too limiting in this day and age of
Twitch/TikTok streams and heavy media users.  Gotta remember that for the
most part, almost all the internet traffic is TCP and thus has that two-way
charge when it comes to consuming data... the more data you receive, the
faster you need to ACK those packets and if you're upstream is limited, you
won't be delivering a quality product.

But more to the point, this is the time where a business could take
advantage of the opportunities being offered in resource capital to upgrade
their entire physical plant.  The minimum should be the best technology you
can offer for your subscriber base.  If you see your subscriber base
planning on utilizing 5G, then you'll need to consider throwing out the old
and upgrading the last mile.  That will be some cost and effort.  But last
I heard: glass fiber is fairly future-proof.

Wireless is great for addressing some of the legacy "last mile" issues -
but unless you're next to the device, you'll be fighting for sufficient
bandwidth - as we see with 2.4Ghz 802.11 networks simply due to physics
(ie: more bandwidth == less rf range).  And since wireless is a shared
resource in and of itself, it's not the solution by itself.

We shouldn't be blocking any improvement in any part of the network.  IPv6
and 5G could truly be an amazing thing and next-level products could be
brought to market - if the network was there.  We've seen many times that
if the bandwidth is available ( and hence the inception of 'Internet2'
which is proving beneficial for all sorts of science research due to the
size of datasets ) there will be applications - even if it's to allow
people to truly be without "boundaries" or freed from working in a specific
location due to physical presence requirements and are able to work
anywhere if bandwidth is available to accommodate and not be impacting.

This is usually the biggest consideration for every teleworker unless the
location provides other value (ie: production or lifestyle benefits).

You may only use enough home internet to stick to the lowest subscriber
package.  In an urban modern family, that would be the exception case.. not
the normal.

I get reluctance, but with Starlink and Amazon going up to orbit with
satellite constellations, Alphabet and FB doing drone/UAV research, etc...
the reason they're doing those projects and paying for the research of
"how @ scale to do x", because the physical plant network providers like
former Bell and Cable have a track record of not showing the willingness to
extend service out to that .09% of consumers within a region because the
customer lives at the end of a 50-mile dirt road and there are no other
subscribers along the way.

The fact that ADSL hasn't locked up this percentage of people is shameful
on a multitude of levels - and that's not even withstanding the security
reality of the next problem: SCADA and security were to manage the jack
pump at oil wells, you need to use a dialup modem just to flick a switch on
or off... let alone the other problems with running a national
infrastructure over the PSTN.

So the correct answer is a different question:  Which fiber technology will
we use to deliver FTTP/FTTH?

>From discussions I monitor in WISP/FISP space, the companies/isp's that
commit to building that future growth, are either causing subscriber growth
or are being called by real estate developers to drop fiber in new
communities because customers are demanding fast internet with their
freshly new homes.  For older locations, it should be a no-brainer and
especially to the farm where agra-biz impacts logistics and systems - like
tractors.




On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:32 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> 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 subsid

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Raymond Burkholder]

On 5/30/21 8:32 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2021 15:56:52 -0500, Blake Dunlap said:

The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have
either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their
subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't.

Are you able to share any numbers about costs per mile and/or subscriber? I'm
sure a lot of people are curious how the co-op was able to run fiber to places
that none of the usual suspects wanted to run coax to. (Of course, it probably
helped that a co-op only has to care about eventually  breaking even or at
least not losing *too* much money, rather than making a profit in the
relatively short term)


Yes please.  I'm in a location with fibre transits town but is only 
currently used for the school.  The incumbent doesn't feel like 
replacing the copper infra with fibre.


I'd like to be able to present a decent install plan to the mayor and 
council for consideration.


About 450 buildings.  Mostly residential.

We've got a company here who knows how to do horizontal boring.  I'm 
wondering if they might be part of an effective plan.  I need to meet up 
with them at some point.

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/29/21 04:17, Patrick Cole wrote:



We ran a medium sized mpls network using ciena 3900 and 5000 series 
boxes on our microwave network.


Nothing but problems, the mpls code was just not mature enough and our 
radio network had the boxes falling apart at the seams as storms 
rolled through.  At that time they didn't support FRR or proper CSPF 
so everything had to be manually engineered active standby LSPs. Not 
sure if things have changed now. These boxes have Nortel vintage and 
they seemed best delloyed using PBB TE as it was mature.


Yep, same issues we heard from our last mile partner here in South Africa.

As a DWDM system, Ciena are great (we use them both on the dry and wet 
side).


As a packet box, I have no experience, but this is likely due to 
instinctive reasons :-).


Mark.

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/29/21 00:46, Colton Conor wrote:

Yes, I was surprised as you that they have these routing features. I 
was also surprised they had multiple boxes that compete with 
aggregation devices like the ACX5048. The question is how good is 
Ciena's MPLS, switching, and routing stack compared to the established 
players of Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia? Ciena is no small company, so I 
think they would have the resources to make it happen.


One of our last mile partners started their Metro-E network off of 
Ciena, years back. As it has grown, it has become unwieldy, and they are 
now culling the level of intelligence from their Ciena platforms and 
moving that over to Juniper MX's.


They will keep their Ciena devices, but relegate them to Access nodes, 
with T-LDP.


They do intend to continue considering use of LDP/RSVP with Ciena, but 
indicated that they will be looking for stable code that has plenty of 
bugs fixed, from their experience.


This is a fairly large network here in South Africa, which has been 
running Ciena for their core and access Metro-E infrastructure for over 
6 years now. From what they shared with us (in an effort to explain 
recent months of downtime), I'd approach with caution.


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/29/21 00:38, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.


Technically speaking, 8 billion people is not 8 billion households :-).

But the bigger problem is getting fibre to every family in the world is 
not yet currently feasible.


There is a reason developing markets have a lot more mobile phones than 
they have people, or the energy to charge them.


Mark.

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Patrick Cole]

Colton,

This was 6+ years ago, SAOS 6.14, so I don't know it might be better now.

We changed to Cisco ASR920 and it was a night and day difference - we now have
90ish ASR920s in production but are migrating toward the NCS540X.

Patrick

Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:13:13AM -0500, Colton Conor wrote:


>Patrick,
>How long ago was this, and what code were they running?
>What do you recommend for aggregation then?
>On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:17 PM Patrick Cole  wrote:
> 
>  We ran a medium sized mpls network using ciena 3900 and 5000 series
>  boxes on our microwave network.
>  Nothing but problems, the mpls code was just not mature enough and our
>  radio network had the boxes falling apart at the seams as storms rolled
>  through.  At that time they didn't support FRR or proper CSPF so
>  everything had to be manually engineered active standby LSPs. Not sure
>  if things have changed now. These boxes have Nortel vintage and they
>  seemed best delloyed using PBB TE as it was mature. 
>  As an NID though they are not a bad option but not in core or
>  aggregation IMHO. 
> 
>  On 29 May 2021 08:49:51 Colton Conor  wrote:
> 
>Yes, I was surprised as you that they have these routing features. I
>was also surprised they had multiple boxes that compete with
>aggregation devices like the ACX5048. The question is how good is
>Ciena's MPLS, switching, and routing stack compared to the established
>players of Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia? Ciena is no small company, so I
>think they would have the resources to make it happen.
>On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:32 PM  wrote:
> 
>  Wow, ciena has the means to implement SR and MPLS services?  I mean
>  they run the underlying LS IGP to signal those SIDâ**s ??  I
>  didnâ**t know that.  I may look at them in the future then.  I
>  thought Ciena just did some sort of static mpls-tp or somethingâ*¦
> 
>   
> 
>  We use Accedian as NIDâ**s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA
>  stuff)â*¦and uplink those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco
>  ME3600â**s and ASR9000â**s), but now, ACX5048 and MX204
> 
>   
> 
>  -Aaron
> 
>   

-- 
Patrick Cole 
Chief Engineer
Spirit Technology Solutions
19-25 Raglan St, South Melbourne VIC 3205
Desk:0385541391
Mobile:  0410626630

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Sun, 30 May 2021 15:56:52 -0500, Blake Dunlap said:
> The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have
> either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their
> subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't.

Are you able to share any numbers about costs per mile and/or subscriber? I'm
sure a lot of people are curious how the co-op was able to run fiber to places
that none of the usual suspects wanted to run coax to. (Of course, it probably
helped that a co-op only has to care about eventually  breaking even or at
least not losing *too* much money, rather than making a profit in the
relatively short term)



pgpXe2_y2MUMj.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Dunlap]

The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have
either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their
subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't.
Setting the bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more
backhaul meet it only serves to limit the interest in fixing the problem
correctly so Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50
bucks for few more years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants
that are barely maintained as it is simply because established companies
want to collect the gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to
actually make anything better because it's better for their bottom line to
keep everyone's expectations firmly in the 90s or even 80s.

On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett :
>
>> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why
>> should anyone care?
>>
>
> That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and
> therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that
> someone believes these people could do with less.
>
> The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.
>
> Regards
>
> Baldur
>
>
>>

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Eric Kuhnke]

An interesting question would be to quantify and do statistical analysis on
the following:

Take a set of 1000 or more residential last mile broadband customers on an
effectively more-than-they-can-use connection (symmetric 1Gbps active
ethernet or similar).

On a 60s interval, retrieve SNMP traffic stats from the interfaces towards
the customers' demarcs, or directly from on premises CPEs.

Store that data in influxdb or another lossless time series database for a
multi month period.

Anonymize the data so that no possible information about the
identity/circuit ID/location of the customer can be identified. Perhaps
other than "gigE customer somewhere in North America", representing a semi
random choice of US/Canada domestic market residential broadband users.

Provide that data set to persons who wish to analyze it to see how much/how
bursty the traffic really is, night/day traffic patterns, remote work
traffic patterns during office hours in certain time zones, etc.
Additionally quantify what percentage of users move how much upstream data
or come anywhere near maxing it out in brief bursts (people doing full disk
offsite backups of 8TB HDDs to Backblaze, uploading 4K videos to youtube,
etc).

I at first thought of a concept of doing something similar but with netflow
data on a per CPE basis, but that has a great deal more worrisome privacy
and PII data implications than simply raw bps/s interface data. Presumably
netflow (or data from Kentik, etc) for various CDN traffic and other per-AS
downstream traffic headed to an aggregation router that serves exclusively
a block of a few thousand downstream residential symmetric gigabit
customers would not be a difficult task to sufficiently anonymize.




On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 4:25 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements
> for IP congestion collapse.  During the peering battles, some ISPs used to
> claim average bps measurements showed no problems.  But in reality there
> were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which
> didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.
>
>
> Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum
> connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job
> interview video calls, and network background application noise?
>
>
> During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home
> schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of
> different states.  Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed
> or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students
> on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls,
> and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those
> students to fail exams unnecessarily.
>
> In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils
> with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at
> home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph
> was less than 1 mbps.
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett :

> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why
> should anyone care?
>

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and
therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that
someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur


>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[John Curran]

Sean - 

As others have alluded to, it likely would heavily depend how such a definition 
of “broadband Internet" gets used…

As a recommendation, it’s a wonderful thing to have a reference target for 
service providers to aim for in their offerings. 

As a mandated requirement (e.g. when used for purposes of approving government 
licensing or funding), then it’s very important to recognize that there will 
always be unintended consequences of such mandates; i.e. it’s very easy to 
argue that “everyone deserves N times faster Internet”, but implementation 
reality is always that funding doesn’t exist to provide that service to 
everyone, so such mandates can result in those who would very much appreciate 
an “inferior” government-approved or subsidized service getting no service at 
all…

The above is not a statement in favor or against any particular definition, but 
rather observation that the question is hard to consider absent more detail 
about circumstances (and some of the potential consequences) of how the 
definition will be applied back in the real-world. 

Thanks,
/John

> On 27 May 2021, at 8:29 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Bryan Fields]

On 5/29/21 11:39 AM, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> Good point, but developments in QAM technology benefit both fiber and radio 
> nowadays.

You can't escape the limits of physics here.  Doubling your QAM means you
loose sensitivity, and typically limits your transmitter power to low levels.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
anyone care? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 4:25:35 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


In 2021 I would claim that 100 Mbps is where "good" internet starts. Yes, 25 
Mbps will work but it is not good internet. Not to mention 2 Mbps ADSL which is 
almost the same as no internet. 


Now there are needs for an individual and there are needs for a community. The 
rural communities have a genuine need for good internet. Anything less will 
continue to accelerate the move of people to the cities. In the end, each 
individual decides for himself what his needs are and sufficient people want 
good internet, so that they will have that as part of their considerations when 
deciding to move. 


With poor internet the community will accumulate people that dont care about 
the internet, which often means elderly people. More elderly people means 
younger people do not feel at home, so they will move away or not move there, 
which further accelerates the effect. 


Regards, 


Baldur 




On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Andy Ringsmuth < a...@andyring.com > wrote: 


Well, honestly, if you really want to go down the “need vs. want” road, 100 
percent of the folks on this list would be out of a job. 

What are genuine needs? Food/water, clothing and shelter. That’s it. Even the 
last two are somewhat negotiable if you get right down to it. 

 
Andy Ringsmuth 
5609 Harding Drive 
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 
(402) 304-0083 
a...@andyring.com 

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863 

> On May 29, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 
> 
> Need vs. want. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Baldur Norddahl" < baldur.nordd...@gmail.com > 
> To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:49:01 AM 
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 
> 
> I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps 
> download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to have 
> access to broadband by 2025. 
> 
> Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely 
> useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals 
> and to measure how we are progressing. 
> 
> All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G and 
> fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might need 
> upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The coax 
> might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to invest 
> to be able to claim broadband. 
> 
> On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my opinion. 
> Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet and nothing 
> is going to be done because it is broadband! 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

That doesn't really serve any value and 99.99% of people would not pay 
any more than $50 for the ability, so your ability to execute such a system is 
limited. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe"  
To: "Laura Smith"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 4:43:50 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

I’m right there with you. I can download an entire Mac OS update in 6 minutes. 
It’s astonishing. I’d pay a grand a month for this. I’d pay five. 




-LB 

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net 
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.” 
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ 







On May 29, 2021, at 1:57 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: 


I agree with Dan. 

In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 
39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) . 

As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. 

But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches 
from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site 
backups or for friends/customers  I don't know what I'd do without it ! 

And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV is 
long gone ... I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house 
streaming 4K and nobody notices. 

I would never, ever, go back to DSL. Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd still 
pay it. 

Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the 
minimum for 2021 should be 1/1. Anything less than that is a bit silly and will 
soon be obsolete. 

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ 
On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka < mrsyelt...@gmail.com > wrote: 



But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike. Brandon's ISP can provide 
that service. 

So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on 
population density, last mile tech, etc? 

I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally 
find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or 
thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. 

Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits per 
second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move files I 
can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021. 

Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be sustained 
throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how feasible it 
is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. 

Dan 

(end) 

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 



That's not based in any kind of reality. 

- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

From: "Brandon Price"  
To: "Sean Donelan" , "NANOG Operators' Group" 
 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM 
Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

100/100 minimum for sure. 

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 
1000/1000 for $60 no data caps. 

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block 
claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the 
current definition's upload speed. 

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... 

Brandon Price 
Senior Network Engineer 
City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband 

-Original Message- 
From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Sean Donelan 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM 
To: NANOG Operators' Group  
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the 
content is safe. 

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote: 


At least 100/100. 

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone 
at if I could. 



At $50/month or less? 

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

I’m right there with you.  I can download an entire Mac OS update in 6 minutes. 
 It’s astonishing.  I’d pay a grand a month for this.  I’d pay five.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On May 29, 2021, at 1:57 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> I agree with Dan.
> 
> In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 
> 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) .
> 
> As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. 
> 
> But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches 
> from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site 
> backups or for friends/customers  I don't know what I'd do without it !   
> 
> And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV 
> is long gone ...  I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house 
> streaming 4K and nobody notices.
> 
> I would never, ever, go back to DSL.  Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd 
> still pay it.
> 
> Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the 
> minimum for 2021 should be 1/1.  Anything less than that is a bit silly and 
> will soon be obsolete.
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka  wrote:
> 
>> But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike.   Brandon's ISP can 
>> provide that service.
>> 
>> So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on 
>> population density, last mile tech, etc?
>> 
>> I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally 
>> find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or 
>> thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. 
>> 
>> Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits 
>> per second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move 
>> files I can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021.
>> 
>> Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be 
>> sustained throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how 
>> feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. 
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> (end)
>> 
>> On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> 
>>> That's not based in any kind of reality.
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>> 
>>> Midwest-IX
>>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>> 
>>> From: "Brandon Price" 
>>> To: "Sean Donelan" , "NANOG Operators' Group" 
>>> 
>>> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM
>>> Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>>> 
>>> 100/100 minimum for sure.
>>> 
>>> In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 
>>> 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.
>>> 
>>> We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census 
>>> block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower 
>>> and hit the current definition's upload speed.
>>> 
>>> I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...  
>>> 
>>> Brandon Price
>>> Senior Network Engineer
>>> City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: NANOG  On Behalf 
>>> Of Sean Donelan
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
>>> To: NANOG Operators' Group 
>>> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>>> 
>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not 
>>> click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or 
>>> know the content is safe.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
 At least 100/100.
 
 We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start 
 everyone at if I could.
>>> 
>>> At $50/month or less?
>>> 
>>> Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[David]

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.



This seems to be the point most respondents are missing

No entity is blocking slower than X deployments; the 64 million dollar 
err bit question is what qualifies.


(I'd be happy if it also excluded "5 Gee" if that squelched the endless 
tsunami of ads on same.)

Where do you hire telecom relationship mgrs?

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

At the risk of running afoul (moderators pls delete if inappropriate) - I’d 
like to ask the group as a whole where you go these days to find experienced 
enterprise telecom relationship managers/salespeople?   I’m talking about the 
1-2% of the pool that bring their own book, have existing relationships, and 
perform to high 6 to 7 figures.

Where do find, or have you found, the people you’d never let go?

This can be a resource for all of us, though I should disclose that I do own a 
telecom company (see sig).  However, after asking several other telecoms where 
they hire people, and getting “we don’t know” - I thought I’d put it to the 
entire list.

—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net 
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Keith Christian]

I don’t think any speed should be mandated.

The speed will increase as fast as the market allows.

Don’t want to much government involvement into any free market business.

Government brings confusion and waste.

does anybody know how to get charter coax business IP removed from black list?

[tim]

Hello Guys
I been on the phone with spectrum business coax tech support and they 
are telling me that I have 2 IP's to my modem I pay for static IPs they 
are calming these are not real world IP's and I have other IP address 
that is tied to my cable modem that is public and they keep telling me I 
have to contact spamhaus to get this IP of 107.11.203.208 which I have 
no clue where that IP came from and they said that IP address is tied to 
my modem which I have different static IP address inside of my mikrotik 
because now when I do trace routes or ping to my DIA fiber connection it 
just drops. I am at loss here on what to do.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Well right, but what many seem to be disconnected with is where is the line 
between spending a few billion dollars per year and spending tens or hundreds 
of billions of dollars per year. We're conflating "minimum acceptable service" 
with "what I feel I need to be comfortable." 




If we decide to raise it to 100/100, what do we get out of it? 


Is it worth the cost? 



Why 100/100? Wouldn't 10 megs of upload fulfill most of the new-found need? If 
not 10, wouldn't 15 or 20? 




Historically, the bulk of the need for big residential upload was backing up to 
the cloud of various local archives. That's a one-time transaction. After that, 
the backups are incremental and insignificant for most uses. 




A lot of people have a hard time not equating edge cases with normal. We then 
take that "normal" and then assume that happens everywhere and that if not, 
it's because of some devious scheme put in place. We'll have to realize that 
not everyone has 6 kids e-learning from home and has 14 Ring\Nest cameras 
streaming to the cloud while 10 people watch Amazon 4k video. 




How many anecdotes are because of: 
Poor in-home WiFi? 
Inconsistent minimum bps? 
Low peak bps? 
High ms? 
Inconsistent ms? 
Packet loss? 
Something else in the middle-mile? 
Bad peering? 
Trying to do something that probably shouldn't be done anyway? 








Admittedly, many of the largest ISPs have done the bare minimum (or less) over 
the past 20 years. That does need to be fixed. 












- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Andy Ringsmuth"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 4:19:37 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

Well, honestly, if you really want to go down the “need vs. want” road, 100 
percent of the folks on this list would be out of a job. 

What are genuine needs? Food/water, clothing and shelter. That’s it. Even the 
last two are somewhat negotiable if you get right down to it. 

 
Andy Ringsmuth 
5609 Harding Drive 
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 
(402) 304-0083 
a...@andyring.com 

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863 

> On May 29, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> Need vs. want. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
> To: "NANOG"  
> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:49:01 AM 
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 
> 
> I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps 
> download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to have 
> access to broadband by 2025. 
> 
> Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely 
> useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals 
> and to measure how we are progressing. 
> 
> All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G and 
> fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might need 
> upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The coax 
> might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to invest 
> to be able to claim broadband. 
> 
> On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my opinion. 
> Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet and nothing 
> is going to be done because it is broadband! 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Also, LEOs still won't penetrate foliage. 

LEOs won't work in MDUs. 
LEOs won't work in varying terrain. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Mike Hammett"  
To: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 10:55:53 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


Starlink won't have a significant impact anywhere fixed services are a 
reasonable option. There's just not enough capacity available, even with 40k 
birds. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE"  
To: "Mike Lyon"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 10:39:51 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

Good point, but developments in QAM technology benefit both fiber and radio 
nowadays. Starlink will eventually be capable of 10gbit links through... 
essentially just carrier aggregation to a massive LEO cluster. 

That’s global 10gbit... I’m cautiously optimistic that we will see an 
incredibly bandwidth rich future, and I’m absolutely confident that humanity 
deserves one. 

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net 
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.” 

FCC License KJ6FJJ 

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. 

> On May 29, 2021, at 7:54 AM, Mike Lyon  wrote: 
> 
> We are all happy for you that your technology allows for that, really, we 
> are. 
> 
> For those that cannot get fiber, we’re still dependant on the physics of 
> radio waves for last mile. And, hell, even for the middle miles! 
> 
> -Mike 
> 
>> On May 29, 2021, at 07:47, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>>  wrote: 
>> 
>> So I’ll do this, on purpose. Here’s the result: 
>> 
>> We decided, oh, 28 years ago, not to offer an insulting service tier at all; 
>> all our services, even the most “entry level” are designed to make you feel 
>> not just special, but like you’re one of perhaps 6 billionaire customers we 
>> have and depend entirely upon. The entire framework of my company is built 
>> this way, from encrypted 10g enterprise and now residential connections, to 
>> access to c-levels for every customer. Scaling that will be a challenge, but 
>> it’s something I look forward to bringing to 8 billion people. 
>> 
>> Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>> 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
>> CEO 
>> l...@6by7.net 
>> "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in 
>> the world.” 
>> 
>> FCC License KJ6FJJ 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. 
>> 
 On May 28, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote: 
>>> 
>>> I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication 
>>> companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, 
>>> including only their "lifeline" customer service lines. 

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Mike Hammett]

I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the end-all, 
be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew that. However, 
many of us here still get distracted by the bps. 


If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Sean Donelan"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM 
Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections) 


I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements 
for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to 
claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there 
were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which 
didn't show up in simple average bps graphs. 


Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum 
connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job 
interview video calls, and network background application noise? 


During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home 
schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of 
different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed 
or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students 
on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, 
and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those 
students to fail exams unnecessarily. 

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils 
with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at 
home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph 
was less than 1 mbps. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

In 2021 I would claim that 100 Mbps is where "good" internet starts. Yes,
25 Mbps will work but it is not good internet. Not to mention 2 Mbps ADSL
which is almost the same as no internet.

Now there are needs for an individual and there are needs for a community.
The rural communities have a genuine need for good internet. Anything less
will continue to accelerate the move of people to the cities. In the end,
each individual decides for himself what his needs are and sufficient
people want good internet, so that they will have that as part of their
considerations when deciding to move.

With poor internet the community will accumulate people that dont care
about the internet, which often means elderly people. More elderly people
means younger people do not feel at home, so they will move away or not
move there, which further accelerates the effect.

Regards,

Baldur


On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:

> Well, honestly, if you really want to go down the “need vs. want” road,
> 100 percent of the folks on this list would be out of a job.
>
> What are genuine needs? Food/water, clothing and shelter. That’s it. Even
> the last two are somewhat negotiable if you get right down to it.
>
> 
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> a...@andyring.com
>
> “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863
>
> > On May 29, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> >
> > Need vs. want.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > From: "Baldur Norddahl" 
> > To: "NANOG" 
> > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:49:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> >
> > I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps
> download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to
> have access to broadband by 2025.
> >
> > Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely
> useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals
> and to measure how we are progressing.
> >
> > All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G
> and fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might
> need upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The
> coax might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to
> invest to be able to claim broadband.
> >
> > On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my
> opinion. Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet
> and nothing is going to be done because it is broadband!
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Baldur
>
>

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Masataka Ohta]

Sean Donelan wrote:

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world 
minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams 
applications, job interview video calls, and network background 
application noise?


The requirement is end-to-end QoS guaranteed connections with
reasonably small busy probability.

Though PNNI and RSVP failed with reasons, it is not very
difficult to have scalable protocols and scalable queuing
to do so.

Masataka Ohta