Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Jared Mauch]

Sadly thus us repeating the same problematic data based on average usage by 
older Americans vs usage by younger people or those of us with several 
children. 

I agree with the average utilization but when it comes to those peaks my 
customers can finish their uploads or restores quickly when they do need it. If 
they are behind a limiter at 25m suddenly that FedEx or carrier pigeon seems 
best. 

Business I was at today says they need 40mbps 

- Jared 

Sent via RFC1925 complaint device

> On May 28, 2022, at 4:22 PM, Mike Hammett via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> 
> Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, 
> but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Aaron Wendel" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:49:13 PM
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
> 
> The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household 
> will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump it to a gig 
> or more?
> 
> 
> On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0
> >  
> >
> >
> > The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek 
> > comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support 
> > to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to 
> > more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to 
> > the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the 
> > goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps 
> > broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers 
> > currently receiving A-CAM support.
> >
> 
> 

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Eric Kuhnke]

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3
operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with
multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no
intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream
asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per
home.





On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, Jeff Shultz  wrote:

> I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we
> do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc...
> there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that
> upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass  wrote:
>
>> The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or
>> even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are
>> able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .
>>
>> The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume
>> the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer.  Even
>> “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth
>> limit.
>>
>> We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but
>> there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we
>> start to see issues.
>>
>> I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.
>>
>> Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically
>> increased as part of that.  We would rarely use it, but that would likely
>> be sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point
>> though.
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst"
>>> return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural and
>>> tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed
>>> broadband.
>>>
>>> These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.
>>>
>>> After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals
>>> will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower total
>>> cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for
>>> the first 10 years of subsidies.  [massive over-simplification]
>>>
>>> Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned,
>>> incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.
>>>
>>
>
> --
> Jeff Shultz
>
>
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
>
> [image:
> https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/]
> 
> 
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
> delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be
> guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted,
> corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses.
> The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission. 
>

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Jared Mauch]

> On May 26, 2022, at 9:31 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG  
> wrote:
> 
>> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low 
>> bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
>> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem
> 
> +1
> IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will 
> matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, 
> if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will 
> be speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
> security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

This is always cute when posted from the haves vs the have-nots.  I’m watching 
a lot of people who don’t want to take government money, or play along flail at 
all of this.  They see the internet as for e-mail vs some futuristic use-case.

A few realities:

1) material cost is overall small for a fiber network (Even with the 250% price 
increase in the past ~24 months in materials)
2) Labor is the killer (this also has inputs of diesel fuel costs as the trucks 
that move the stuff are all diesel) reflecting 80%+ of the direct hard costs
3) There’s a lot of variable soft costs in permitting, engineering (Drawings) 
and network design inputs.
4) Many electric utilities have poor quality poles and want to charge tenants 
to upgrade them when they’ve ignored them for decades
5) Several companies have zero incentive to improve the QOE of the end-user 
service

Of course speed, latency, reliability matter.

It’s possible to hit people with varying technologies, and when you stick to 
one, be it PON, HFC, xDSL + FTTx, the other inputs come into play, be it the 
spectrum reserved for RF overlay on PON and HFC or otherwise.

You’re also seeing carriers walk away from new developments if they can’t be 
the monopoly option there, so it’s quite interesting watching what happens with 
my FTTH hat on.

I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus on how 
you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available if you’re 
willing to take it.  It might mean taking the USF money and the obligations 
that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but those costs don’t have to 
be onerous if you are mindful of how the programs work and have the right 
integration/reporting.

- Jared

RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Richard Irving]

I will out an old member of list, not myself, he still runs Old Cisco (ASA 
managed, “fully”, might be debatable) firewall, capable of full duplex 100 Mbs, 
on -both- sides.  (WHOA)
His optic provider gave him a converter between the full optic GigE run into 
his house, and the 100 FD at the ASA. (It was a special deal, free installation
and more reliable than the competitor) (Both were actually =true=, can you 
imagine ?)

He runs a business in his basement that monitors several well known big 
services his business relies upon 24x7x365, for over 25 years.
All interruptions are noticed (within reason) and monitored, logged and alarmed 
accordingly.

He and his wife has raised 2 children through college, (one’s on his MBA), his 
retirement business.. -everyone- streams, there is no “cable” per se, he “cut 
the wire” when it was fashionable….
and their children would rather video chat than walk across the room, or go out 
somewhere.

He adores telling me about how salespeople are *constantly* calling him to 
upgrade the service. “Why, we can fit 5GigE down to you now!” said the
salesperson with garish clothes and floppy clown feet. “You just *can’t* live 
without it!” “thump-thump” goes those feet…..

He always asks them for the packet loss ratio on the existing link….. the call 
sorta ends after that.

FWIW, he always starts this story out with a snicker, and some latest and 
greatest gourmet drink..… :-P



Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Mike Hammett via NANOG
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Aaron Wendel
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, 
but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine.


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

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


From: "Aaron Wendel" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:49:13 PM
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household
will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump it to a gig
or more?


On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0
>
>
> The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek
> comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support
> to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to
> more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to
> the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the
> goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps
> broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers
> currently receiving A-CAM support.
>