Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Dan Stralka]

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" <
> nanog@nanog.org>
> *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

[Mike Hammett]

If we keep going down this road, we'll be siphoning up grant dollars away from 
communities that actually need it, sending it to communities with fake needs. 
There are a lot of parallels to other parts of society with people telling 
others what they should need, but not reflected in reality. 




"Why would you want to?" 


There aren't unlimited resources. Allocate them properly. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Brandon Price"  
To: "Mike Lyon" , "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" 
 
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 6:08:35 PM 
Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



It’s not about being lucky, it’s that the grant dollars are being siphoned up 
by folks providing a mediocre product. There are fiber providers that can make 
a rural build pencil if they were eligible. The point of the definition is to 
encourage building a better product. 

To your previous question about usage, I took a quick look at one of my smaller 
GPON shelves and most times the download to upload ratio is roughly 4 to 1 
across all the subs on that shelf. That’s a healthy upload by itself, but there 
was a 5 minute datapoint just now where the upload spiked to about triple the 
download rate. Someone did a huge upload, and got it over and done with quick. 
Yes people can live with less bandwidth, but why would you want to? 

The feedback I hear from more and more customers with regards to upload is 
teleconferencing for work/school and IOT type devices uploading to the cloud…. 


Brandon 







From: Mike Lyon  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:42 PM 
To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE  
Cc: Brandon Price ; 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. 



Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUGE amount of areas that aren't 
lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go. 



So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to 
have fiber? 



-Mike 









On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE < 
l...@6by7.net > wrote: 




Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. 

> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.l...@gmail.com > wrote: 
> 
> 
> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
> actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum? 

Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
exploring. 

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap. 

Relatively speaking. 

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.) 

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people. 

That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video 
games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself 
says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone. 

Are you ready? 



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 






-- 




Mike Lyon 

mike.l...@gmail.com 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Far from a major company, but I run two ISPs, one fixed wireless and one 
DSL\fiber. 


This is my "home" connection. (See attached). 



Max In: 4.55Mb; Average In: 421.44Kb; Current In: 333.26Kb; 
Max Out: 11.16Mb; Average Out: 2.04Mb; Current Out: 1.53Mb; 




That's a monthly graph of an interface facing the home, so In is upload and Out 
is download. That's four homes, six adults (five of them under 40), four 
children, two of which have been e-learning from home most of the year. One of 
the adults is me, definitely not a normal user. There is a Ring camera in one 
of the houses. There are a bunch of other cameras, but they're on another VLAN 
that goes to a local NAS. 






People vastly overestimate how much Internet they think they (and others) need. 







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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Sean Donelan"  
To: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 9:00:13 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Mike Lyon wrote: 
> since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses 
> for "minimums?" 

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. 

Based on the CEOs experience, then we might have some data whether those 
products are viable for modern households, work-from-home, home-school, 
streaming. 

One of the problems with the product definitions: the "minimum" is 
treated as the "maximum" (up to speed). The actual bandwidth delivered is 
often much less than the advertised "up to" numbers. 

E.g. advertised 25 mbps /3 mbps => actual 7 mbps/768 kbps with data caps 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Nobody is waiting for anything, other than when COD drops. 




- 
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: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:38:18 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149. 

> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote: 
> 
> 
> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
> actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum? 

Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
exploring. 

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap. 

Relatively speaking. 

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.) 

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people. 

That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video 
games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself 
says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone. 

Are you ready? 



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

[Mike Hammett]

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 

- Original Message -

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: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Patrick Cole]

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 SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I 
may look at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of 
static mpls-tp or something…


We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and 
uplink those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and 
ASR9000’s), but now, ACX5048 and MX204


-Aaron

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Mike Lyon wrote:

since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses
for "minimums?"


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.


Based on the CEOs experience, then we might have some data whether those 
products are viable for modern households, work-from-home, home-school, 
streaming.


One of the problems with the product definitions: the "minimum" is 
treated as the "maximum" (up to speed).  The actual bandwidth delivered is 
often much less than the advertised "up to" numbers.


E.g. advertised 25 mbps /3 mbps => actual 7 mbps/768 kbps with data caps

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

Ciena was chosen by AT to deliver much of their enterprise fiber in MTOBs and 
such.  Unsure if they run MPLS but it looks like it from the physical topology.

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 3:46 PM, 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 SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I may 
>> look at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of 
>> static mpls-tp or something…
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and 
>> uplink those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and 
>> ASR9000’s), but now, ACX5048 and MX204
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> -Aaron
>> 
>>  

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

We’re about to become a multi-planet species. Upload will matter.

Remember this message lol.

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 4:08 PM, Brandon Price  wrote:
> 
> 
> It’s not about being lucky,  it’s that the grant dollars are being siphoned 
> up by folks providing a mediocre product. There are fiber providers that can 
> make a rural build pencil if they were eligible. The point of the definition 
> is to encourage building a better product.
>  
> To your previous question about usage,  I took a quick look at one of my 
> smaller GPON shelves and most times the download to upload ratio is roughly 4 
> to 1 across all the subs on that shelf. That’s a healthy upload by itself, 
> but there was a 5 minute datapoint just now where the upload spiked to about 
> triple the download rate. Someone did a huge upload, and got it over and done 
> with quick. Yes people can live with less bandwidth, but why would you want 
> to?
>  
> The feedback I hear from more and more customers with regards to upload is 
> teleconferencing for work/school and IOT type devices uploading to the cloud….
>  
>  
> Brandon
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Mike Lyon  
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:42 PM
> To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
> Cc: Brandon Price ; 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.
>  
> Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUGE amount of areas that aren't 
> lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.
>  
> So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to 
> have fiber?
>  
> -Mike
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
> 
> > On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
> > actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?
> 
> Simple, our time isn’t free.  The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
> downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
> exploring.
> 
> Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are 
> cheap.
> 
> Relatively speaking.
> 
> (And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)
> 
> 8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.
> 
> That’s what it will take to wire the future.  32k res AR environments; 1TB 
> video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm 
> itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.
> 
> Are you ready?
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> --
> Mike Lyon
> mike.l...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon
>  
>  
>  

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

You respond as if fiber installations were all decided by people rolling dice 
during a tabletop gaming session.

Places with fiber got invested into by the providers of those areas, and that 
should be constantly expanded. Maybe companies unwilling to do so shouldn’t be 
getting subsidies. Maybe high speed internet access should be treated as a 
utility such as clean water and electricity if providers are completely 
unwilling to expand and bring the rest of America into 2021?

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:

> Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUGE amount of areas that aren't 
> lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.
>
> So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to 
> have fiber?
>
> -Mike
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
>  wrote:
>
>> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
>>
>>> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
>>> actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?
>>
>> Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
>> downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
>> exploring.
>>
>> Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are 
>> cheap.
>>
>> Relatively speaking.
>>
>> (And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)
>>
>> 8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.
>>
>> That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB 
>> video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - 
>> Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years 
>> alone.
>>
>> Are you ready?
>>
>> 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
>
> --
>
> Mike Lyon
> mike.l...@gmail.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Price]

It’s not about being lucky,  it’s that the grant dollars are being siphoned up 
by folks providing a mediocre product. There are fiber providers that can make 
a rural build pencil if they were eligible. The point of the definition is to 
encourage building a better product.

To your previous question about usage,  I took a quick look at one of my 
smaller GPON shelves and most times the download to upload ratio is roughly 4 
to 1 across all the subs on that shelf. That’s a healthy upload by itself, but 
there was a 5 minute datapoint just now where the upload spiked to about triple 
the download rate. Someone did a huge upload, and got it over and done with 
quick. Yes people can live with less bandwidth, but why would you want to?

The feedback I hear from more and more customers with regards to upload is 
teleconferencing for work/school and IOT type devices uploading to the cloud….


Brandon





From: Mike Lyon 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:42 PM
To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
Cc: Brandon Price ; 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.

Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUGE amount of areas that aren't 
lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.

So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to 
have fiber?

-Mike




On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 
mailto:l...@6by7.net>> wrote:


Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon 
> mailto:mike.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 
> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
> actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

Simple, our time isn’t free.  The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
exploring.

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap.

Relatively speaking.

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.

That’s what it will take to wire the future.  32k res AR environments; 1TB 
video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm 
itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.

Are you ready?



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


--
Mike Lyon
mike.l...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Ask Bjørn Hansen]

> On May 28, 2021, at 15:41, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> 
> So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to 
> have fiber?


Fiber gets deployed to certain geographic areas because they’re lucky? This is 
definitely news to me! Next the telecom industry will be regulated as a game of 
chance?

If only society had mechanisms to push societally beneficially developments so 
it wouldn’t all just be a matter of luck!


Ask

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Colton Conor]

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 SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I
> may look at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of
> static mpls-tp or something…
>
>
>
> We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and
> uplink those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and
> ASR9000’s), but now, ACX5048 and MX204
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUGE amount of areas that aren't
lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.

So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough
to have fiber?

-Mike




On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <
l...@6by7.net> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.
>
> > On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are
> they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the
> minimum?
>
> Simple, our time isn’t free.  The less time humanity itself spends waiting
> on downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and
> exploring.
>
> Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are
> cheap.
>
> Relatively speaking.
>
> (And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)
>
> 8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.
>
> That’s what it will take to wire the future.  32k res AR environments; 1TB
> video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars -
> Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years
> alone.
>
> Are you ready?
>
>
>
> 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



-- 
Mike Lyon
mike.l...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> 
> 
> Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they 
> actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

Simple, our time isn’t free.  The less time humanity itself spends waiting on 
downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and 
exploring.

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap.

Relatively speaking.

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.

That’s what it will take to wire the future.  32k res AR environments; 1TB 
video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm 
itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.

Are you ready?



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

[Mike Lyon]

Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they
actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

If they are on a 100/100 and the majority of the folks don't use a 10th of
that throughput, why make it 100 if it's not actually being used? If it's
not actually being used, why don't we just make the minimum 10G or 100G
since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses
for "minimums?"

-Mike


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:23 PM Brandon Price 
wrote:

> 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.
>
>

-- 
Mike Lyon
mike.l...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Price]

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: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[aaron1]

Yeah, good point Shawn, I’ve had guys ask “where is the mac table?” in the 
accedian, ha.  Yeah it’s very point to point’ish… you tell a port what vlan to 
expect, and then what port to send that out.  Very rigid like that.

 

Yeah Ryan, and as I understand it, the NCS540 has the sweet XR OS too

 

-aaron

 

RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Ryan Hamel]

At a few sites of mine, I’ve seen Cisco NCS 520 devices for local in-rack 
deployments, and NCS 540’s for aggregation and extension handoffs. Looking at 
their datasheets real fast, MPLS + EVPN support come in on the 540 series.

 

Ryan

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Shawn L via 
NANOG
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 11:50 AM
To: aar...@gvtc.com
Cc: 'NANOG' 
Subject: RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

 

The Accedian boxes are nice, as long as you remember they're not switches or 
routers.  We've used them for specific use cases, but have to remember that 
there's things you just can't do on them.  Though things may have changed on 
them since we used them.

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: aar...@gvtc.com  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:31pm
To: "'Colton Conor'" mailto:colton.co...@gmail.com> >, 
"'NANOG'" mailto:nanog@nanog.org> >
Subject: RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

Wow, ciena has the means to implement SR and MPLS services?  I mean they run 
the underlying LS IGP to signal those SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I may look 
at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of static 
mpls-tp or something…

 

We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and uplink 
those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and ASR9000’s), but now, 
ACX5048 and MX204

 

-Aaron

 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Mike Hammett  said:
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput. 
> 
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3? 

More than one person in a residence, home security systems (camera,
doorbell, etc.) uploading continuously, and more.

I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the
last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were
also schooling from home.  Parents had to arrange work calls around
their kids classroom time and around each other's work calls, because of
limited bandwidth.

The time of the Internet being a service largely for consumption of data
is past.  While school-from-home may be a passing thing as the pandemic
wanes, it looks like work-from-home (at least part time) is not going to
go away for a whole lot of people/companies.

-- 
Chris Adams 

RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Shawn L via NANOG]

The Accedian boxes are nice, as long as you remember they're not switches or 
routers.  We've used them for specific use cases, but have to remember that 
there's things you just can't do on them.  Though things may have changed on 
them since we used them.
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: aar...@gvtc.com
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:31pm
To: "'Colton Conor'" , "'NANOG'" 
Subject: RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs




Wow, ciena has the means to implement SR and MPLS services?  I mean they run 
the underlying LS IGP to signal those SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I may look 
at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of static 
mpls-tp or something…
 
We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and uplink 
those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and ASR9000’s), but now, 
ACX5048 and MX204
 
-Aaron


 

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 29 May, 2021

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  853329
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  322118
Deaggregation factor:  2.65
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  405311
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 71355
Prefixes per ASN: 11.96
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   61388
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   25323
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:9967
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:312
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  54
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 48366)  51
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1133
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1140
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  36145
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   30084
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  140026
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:30
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:595
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   3041760128
Equivalent to 181 /8s, 77 /16s and 147 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   82.2
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   82.2
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.5
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  284524

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   229593
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   65601
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.50
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  225586
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:90126
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   11616
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   19.42
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   3343
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1632
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 31
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   6771
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  774737152
Equivalent to 46 /8s, 45 /16s and 141 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-147769
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:248089
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   113510
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.19
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   248325
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:118205
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18821
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:13.19
ARIN 

RE: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[aaron1]

Wow, ciena has the means to implement SR and MPLS services?  I mean they run 
the underlying LS IGP to signal those SID’s ??  I didn’t know that.  I may look 
at them in the future then.  I thought Ciena just did some sort of static 
mpls-tp or something…

 

We use Accedian as NID’s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA stuff)…and uplink 
those into our network at (yester-year, Cisco ME3600’s and ASR9000’s), but now, 
ACX5048 and MX204

 

-Aaron

 

Re: Cloudflare peering contacts

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

Peace,

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 7:33 PM Jun Tanaka  wrote:

> you can find a contact at this site.
> https://www.cloudflare.com/peering-policy/


Yeah, that was my initial point of contact... half a year ago...

--
Töma

Re: 8.8.8.8 380ms from the United States for about 15 minutes

[Matt Hoppes]

I saw some buffering issues on YouTube around 8:30am eastern time.   I 
was pinging Google shortly there after and didn't notice anything bizarre.


I only bring that up because I'm 5 hops from Google peering and never 
have buffering on YouTube, but it could have been something completely 
unrelated.


On 5/28/21 11:34 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:

Hello,

We noticed that for roughly 15 minutes this morning 8.8.8.8 appeared to 
be routed to a far away land (380ms+).


It has already been resolved but did anyone else see this?

Thanks,

-Drew

Re: Cloudflare peering contacts

[Jun Tanaka]

Toma,

you can find a contact at this site.
https://www.cloudflare.com/peering-policy/

-- 
Jun Tanaka 


On Fri, 28 May 2021 19:27:22 +0300

> Peace,
> 
> Is there anyone around from the Cloudflare peering team, or anyone who
> knows the right people?  We've got a peering request that seems to be
> stalled.
> 
> --
> Toma

Cloudflare peering contacts

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

Peace,

Is there anyone around from the Cloudflare peering team, or anyone who
knows the right people?  We've got a peering request that seems to be
stalled.

--
Töma

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

While I agree, one thing to remember is the lack of any urgency to build out 
that infrastructure with the standards as low as they are in the last decade. 
It’s already not really being extended with haste, I doubt raising the 
definition will be the straw that breaks the camels back here. Seems to me that 
back has already been broken long ago.

I do think sprawl builds should be a concerted, separate effort, but I don’t 
think it should hinder this change. There’s plenty of people NOT in BFE that 
are just an hour or two outside a major city with terrible service and this 
change could at least force the ISPs to do something about that. Would it cause 
them to abandon a large portion of their rural builds in the middle of nowhere? 
I severely doubt it, but I’d love to hear more.

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:01 AM, Tim Burke  wrote:

> Totally agree with this. We should be focusing on those in rural areas that 
> can’t get anything, rather than trying to get blazing fast speeds to everyone 
> in the cities.
>
> There are lots of areas here in Texas that can’t get anything other than low 
> speed fixed wireless if they’re lucky or satellite… one of the major telcos 
> (Frontier) has abandoned their DSLAMs in these areas, and it’s extremely cost 
> prohibitive to build out fiber down rural FM roads just to get a couple of 
> people 1gbps. Most of these people would kill to get a consistent 25/3.
>
> V/r
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On May 28, 2021, at 8:36 AM, Josh Luthman  
>> wrote:
>
>> 
>> 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 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)  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  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](mailto: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=DwMDaQ=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE=)

 Midwest-IX
 [http://www.midwest-ix.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com=DwMDaQ=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8=)

 ---

 From: "Sean Donelan" [](mailto: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 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tim Burke]

Totally agree with this. We should be focusing on those in rural areas that 
can’t get anything, rather than trying to get blazing fast speeds to everyone 
in the cities.

There are lots of areas here in Texas that can’t get anything other than low 
speed fixed wireless if they’re lucky or satellite… one of the major telcos 
(Frontier) has abandoned their DSLAMs in these areas, and it’s extremely cost 
prohibitive to build out fiber down rural FM roads just to get a couple of 
people 1gbps. Most of these people would kill to get a consistent 25/3.

V/r
Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2021, at 8:36 AM, Josh Luthman  wrote:


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 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) 
mailto: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 
mailto: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 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

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


From: "Sean Donelan" 
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.

8.8.8.8 380ms from the United States for about 15 minutes

[Drew Weaver]

Hello,

We noticed that for roughly 15 minutes this morning 8.8.8.8 appeared to be 
routed to a far away land (380ms+).

It has already been resolved but did anyone else see this?

Thanks,
-Drew

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

Yes, the video doorbell and similar cameras are a great example of a 
product that barely existed a few years ago and are now common place 
(and one that is driving the need for change in the WiFi and broadband 
space). I agree that a 5:1 (down:up) ratio is better than a 10:1 (and 
that I do not recommend a 20:1 ratio for most folks).


As someone that has a video doorbell (wired) and several wireless cams, 
I can tell you that my experience is that they worked fine on 50Mbps 
down/10Mbps up while two folks did WFH. Would my experience have been 
better with 25Mbps upload? Possibly. Would it have improved with 100Mbps 
instead of 25Mbps? Probably not. At another location I did WFH on a 
30M/3M connection with no adverse affects (that would be minus the video 
doorbell, but with two WiFi cameras). I'm sure there were bottlenecks, 
but either the applications dealt with it intelligently or they shared 
the bandwidth well enough so that everything remained usable.



On 5/28/2021 9:34 AM, Abhi Devireddy wrote:
I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage 
was more asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the 
profile of a typical home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks 
with all the collaboration that is happening remotely.


Typical residential usage:
Zoom group call: 2M upload
OneDrive + Dropbox + Box + Other file sync services: ~ 1 - 5M
Nest / Ring / Other constantly streaming camera = ~1M

If I'm working on a media file that's syncing real-time + on a zoom 
call, artifacts are impossible to avoid. Add to that 2+ users working 
remotely from the same home.


@Mike, Telehealth relies on a combination of HD video + accessories 
that stream AV + telemetry in real-time. In addition to bumping up the 
4M upload, I agree with all the other comments on here about setting 
some parameters around latency and packet loss.


I think if anything, the proliferation of smart devices, requirements 
for higher reliability and the continuity of WFH practices are going 
to put additional demands on upload, not lower.


Abhi


*From:* NANOG  on behalf 
of Blake Hudson 

*Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 9:02 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org 
*Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed? 
Has our use of them changed?


Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord 
cutting of non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP 
streaming services. However, video codecs have gotten more efficient 
so that what used to require an 8Mbps stream now fits in a 4Mbps 
package. I see more folks video conferencing (whether that be for 
personal or business use), which relies more heavily on upload than 
most applications. Folks with crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds have 
become the have-nots in this remote work era. The goal of subsidies is 
to lift the base/minimum so that there are fewer have-nots. Set the 
qualifier too low and you'll end up providing assistance where it 
doesn't accomplish this goal. Raise the qualifier too high too soon 
and you run the risk of excluding assistance where it could help.


I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule 
of thumb I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4 
people, 40Mbps download seems sufficient for today's typical usage 
(this assumes a 10:1 download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency 
needs to be quick enough for real-time voice or video calls to work 
smoothly. If the makeup of our homes change or the applications we use 
within the home change, I'm all for adjusting these figures. This 
still leaves DSL, cable, fiber, and various wireless technologies as 
options that would qualify for the definition of broadband. At some 
point, if one of these technologies cannot keep up with the pace of 
demand it will need to be excluded in favor of technologies that have 
done a better job of keeping pace.


--B


On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) 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  
 *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 
 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 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Abhi Devireddy]

I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more 
asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical 
home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration 
that is happening remotely.

Typical residential usage:
Zoom group call: 2M upload
OneDrive + Dropbox + Box + Other file sync services: ~ 1 - 5M
Nest / Ring / Other constantly streaming camera = ~1M

If I'm working on a media file that's syncing real-time + on a zoom call, 
artifacts are impossible to avoid. Add to that 2+ users working remotely from 
the same home.

@Mike, Telehealth relies on a combination of HD video + accessories that stream 
AV + telemetry in real-time. In addition to bumping up the 4M upload, I agree 
with all the other comments on here about setting some parameters around 
latency and packet loss.

I think if anything, the proliferation of smart devices, requirements for 
higher reliability and the continuity of WFH practices are going to put 
additional demands on upload, not lower.

Abhi


From: NANOG  on behalf of Blake 
Hudson 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 9:02 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed? Has our 
use of them changed?

Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord cutting of 
non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP streaming services. However, 
video codecs have gotten more efficient so that what used to require an 8Mbps 
stream now fits in a 4Mbps package. I see more folks video conferencing 
(whether that be for personal or business use), which relies more heavily on 
upload than most applications. Folks with crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds 
have become the have-nots in this remote work era. The goal of subsidies is to 
lift the base/minimum so that there are fewer have-nots. Set the qualifier too 
low and you'll end up providing assistance where it doesn't accomplish this 
goal. Raise the qualifier too high too soon and you run the risk of excluding 
assistance where it could help.

I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule of thumb 
I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4 people, 40Mbps 
download seems sufficient for today's typical usage (this assumes a 10:1 
download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency needs to be quick enough for 
real-time voice or video calls to work smoothly. If the makeup of our homes 
change or the applications we use within the home change, I'm all for adjusting 
these figures. This still leaves DSL, cable, fiber, and various wireless 
technologies as options that would qualify for the definition of broadband. At 
some point, if one of these technologies cannot keep up with the pace of demand 
it will need to be excluded in favor of technologies that have done a better 
job of keeping pace.

--B


On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) 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 

 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 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

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





From: "Sean Donelan" 
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.?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

100k buildings in the US alone, but no.  

Check back in q4 tho.

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 6:55 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> 
> Clearly not a residential mass-market service.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" 
> To: "Sean Donelan" 
> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" 
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:30:48 PM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> At least 100/100.
> 
> We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone 
> at if I could.
> 
> —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
> 
> 
> 
> On May 27, 2021, at 5:29 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: google fi outage?

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Can confirm t-mobile as working in south east wi

> On May 28, 2021, at 08:23, Dan Walters via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> 
> Just figured id let everyone know if they haven’t seen yet that at least in 
> the WI area the only working carrier for fi right now is T-Mobile. The rest 
> will assign the wrong phone numbers to the activated sim.
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed? 
Has our use of them changed?


Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord cutting 
of non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP streaming 
services. However, video codecs have gotten more efficient so that what 
used to require an 8Mbps stream now fits in a 4Mbps package. I see more 
folks video conferencing (whether that be for personal or business use), 
which relies more heavily on upload than most applications. Folks with 
crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds have become the have-nots in this 
remote work era. The goal of subsidies is to lift the base/minimum so 
that there are fewer have-nots. Set the qualifier too low and you'll end 
up providing assistance where it doesn't accomplish this goal. Raise the 
qualifier too high too soon and you run the risk of excluding assistance 
where it could help.


I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule 
of thumb I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4 
people, 40Mbps download seems sufficient for today's typical usage (this 
assumes a 10:1 download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency needs to be 
quick enough for real-time voice or video calls to work smoothly. If the 
makeup of our homes change or the applications we use within the home 
change, I'm all for adjusting these figures. This still leaves DSL, 
cable, fiber, and various wireless technologies as options that would 
qualify for the definition of broadband. At some point, if one of these 
technologies cannot keep up with the pace of demand it will need to be 
excluded in favor of technologies that have done a better job of keeping 
pace.


--B


On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) 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  *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 
 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



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





*From: *"Sean Donelan"  
*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.?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Even among network operators, many people are disconnected from reality. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "Jim Troutman"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:38:05 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


I'd like to see your data that backs up the statement that the broadband 
internet definition (of 25x3) lags behind actual user needs by a decade. Here 
are the TOP 4 residential users last month: 


up down total 
Fixed Wireless 25x4 93.628 3105.440 3199.068 
Fixed wireless 25x4 290.000 2763.089 3053.089 
Fiber 500 63.563 2063.782 2127.345 
Fiber gig 24.752 1562.230 1586.982 


Two wireless customers did MORE than two fiber customers. The wireless are on 
25 meg and the fiber are on 500/1000 mbps plans. 


The top wireless subscriber is DOUBLE the download usage of the gig fiber 
house. The highest upload user was wireless, which happens to be FIVE TIMES the 
highest usage of the fiber customer. 


Here is an image comparing the top wireless and top fiber customer usage: 
https://postimg.cc/bZwc6PBx 


Please let me know what your data looks like, I would love to compare. 





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 9:18 AM Jim Troutman < jamesltrout...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 






FCC Definition of “broadband Internet” always lags behind the reality of actual 
user needs, by about a decade. 


Various sources show that Internet bandwidth consumption increases at about 29% 
CAGR. 


If you extrapolate from the previous increases and intervals of the FCC's 
changes, the definition of broadband should be a minimum of 100Mbit/100Mbit in 
2021. 


When I hear incumbent providers insisting that 25/3 is still good enough, my 
answer is: "sure, I can agree with that, if you can do that PER DEVICE in the 
home." 


They don't like that argument. 


The only reason 25/3 is still the FCC definition is because of lobbying by 
those that are still limited by twisted pair copper infrastructure. 




On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:40 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: 




I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just 
"almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or even 50 
of upload. 

100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to accomplish 
the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas. 


On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM Sean Donelan < s...@donelan.com > 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. 








-- 





Jim Troutman, 

jamesltrout...@gmail.com 

Pronouns: he/him/his 
207-514-5676 (cell) 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

"Bad connection" measures way more than throughput. 

What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3? 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Abhi Devireddy"  
To: nanog@nanog.org, "Jason Canady"  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:34 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
talk with you. 


There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone who's 
got a bad connection. 

Abhi 



Abhi Devireddy 


From: NANOG  on behalf of Jason 
Canady  
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM 
To: nanog@nanog.org  
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


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 

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



From: "Sean Donelan"  
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. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Clearly not a residential mass-market service. 




- 
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: "Sean Donelan"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:30:48 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

At least 100/100. 


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





—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 





On May 27, 2021, at 5:29 PM, Sean Donelan < s...@donelan.com > 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

[Mike Hammett]

What is the demonstrated *need* (not want) for your standard mass-market 
customer to *need* more than that? 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Chris Adams (IT)"  
To: "Jason Canady" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:13 AM 
Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



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  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 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 

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

- Original Message -


From: "Sean Donelan"  
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. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

I'd like to see your data that backs up the statement that the broadband
internet definition (of 25x3) lags behind actual user needs by a decade.
Here are the TOP 4 residential users last month:

   up   down   total
Fixed Wireless 25x4  93.628 3105.4403199.068
Fixed wireless 25x4   290.000  2763.089 3053.089
Fiber 500   63.5632063.782 2127.345
Fiber gig 24.752   1562.230 1586.982

Two wireless customers did MORE than two fiber customers.  The wireless are
on 25 meg and the fiber are on 500/1000 mbps plans.

The top wireless subscriber is DOUBLE the download usage of the gig fiber
house.  The highest upload user was wireless, which happens to be FIVE
TIMES the highest usage of the fiber customer.

Here is an image comparing the top wireless and top fiber customer usage:
https://postimg.cc/bZwc6PBx

Please let me know what your data looks like, I would love to compare.

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 9:18 AM Jim Troutman 
wrote:

> FCC Definition of “broadband Internet” always lags behind the reality of
> actual user needs, by about a decade.
>
>
> Various sources show that Internet bandwidth consumption increases at
> about 29% CAGR.
>
>
> If you extrapolate from the previous increases and intervals of the FCC's
> changes, the definition of broadband should be a minimum of 100Mbit/100Mbit
> in 2021.
>
>
> When I hear incumbent providers insisting that 25/3 is still good enough,
> my answer is: "sure, I can agree with that, if you can do that PER DEVICE
> in the home."
>
>
> They don't like that argument.
>
>
> The only reason 25/3 is still the FCC definition is because of lobbying by
> those that are still limited by twisted pair copper infrastructure.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:40 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just
>> "almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or
>> even 50 of upload.
>>
>> 100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to
>> accomplish the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas.
>>
>> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 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.
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Jim Troutman,
> jamesltrout...@gmail.com
> Pronouns: he/him/his
> 207-514-5676 (cell)
>

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Colton Conor]

I am going to have to reach out to Nokia and talk to them about their
products then. In the past when I have talked to Nokia their products have
a low upfront cost, but then they license you to death and were worse than
Cisco from what I remember.

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:27 AM Thomas Scott 
wrote:

> Second vote for the Nokia 7200 line, their price points are hard to beat.
> The 7250 was originally designed (per the Nokia reps I've talked to) to be
> a data center switch, but I've seen more than one MSO deploy them in the
> field to great effect. They also make fantastic satellite boxes for their
> 7750 chassis. The 7210 is definitely older, but is a fantastic little MPLS
> PE router.
>
> SRoS is also easy to pickup, considering it was written by ex-Juniper and
> Cisco employees (TiMetra/TiMos if I recall correctly?)
>
> - Thomas Scott | mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:10 AM Brandon Martin 
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/26/21 12:39 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>> > Ciena seems to have multiple options available with Segment Routing,
>> > MPLS, and streaming telemetry support. I am probably most interested
>> > in what Ciena has to offer. Has anyone deployed the 3000 or 5000
>> > product line of Ciena? How does it compare to Juniper? The Ciena 3924
>> > is sub $1000 for example, and has 4 10G ports on it.
>>
>> I've used the Ciena 3000 series switches as NIDs a fair bit and have no
>> real complaints about them aside from TAC being a bit loathe to give out
>> new versions of SAOS even when the version you've got deployed is going
>> EOL.  I've not used the MPLS functionality mostly because it's a pricey
>> software license add-on and I can get by without, but the MEF and
>> associated carrier-oriented Ethernet functionality seems to be pretty
>> much top notch in terms of feature set, stability, and configurability.
>> I mostly use the 3928 though partially because the 3924 is new enough it
>> didn't make it into my standard build-out BOM.  The 3928 does also have
>> redundant PSU (fixed, but there are two) if that matters to you.  At
>> sub-$1000, the 3924 is a good deal in comparison if it'll do what you
>> need.
>>
>> If you've never used them, you might find the config language a bit
>> annoying in that it's more Yoda syntax than Cisco, but it's also more
>> consistent than Cisco (what isn't?), so it's got that going for it.
>> Documentation is alright.  TAC is responsive to inquiries.
>>
>> --
>> Brandon Martin
>>
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

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 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) 
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  *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
>  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
> 
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
>
>
> --
>
> *From: *"Sean Donelan"  
> *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.
>
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Wayne Bouchard]

I fear there are too many areas that are still limited by *dsl
technology so trying to define a certain minimum for upstream
transmission rates is problematic. (Also a pet peave of mine since it
makes moving video and audio project files areound a PITA.)

Personally, I think we're probably best sticking with the current
figures until what is widely available as a top end service begins to
reflect different figures and I don't see that that has happened yet.

-Wayne

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 08:29:08PM -0400, 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.

---
Wayne Bouchard
w...@typo.org
Network Dude
http://www.typo.org/~web/

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Abhi Devireddy]

Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
talk with you.

There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone who's 
got a bad connection.
Abhi

Abhi Devireddy


From: NANOG  on behalf of Jason 
Canady 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections


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

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


From: "Sean Donelan" 
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.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Data Packet Networks LLC]

On 5/27/2021 7:29 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.? 


25/5 is very usable today. Defining acceptable latency and packet loss 
would be a plus.

google fi outage?

[Dan Walters via NANOG]

Just figured id let everyone know if they haven't seen yet that at least in the 
WI area the only working carrier for fi right now is T-Mobile. The rest will 
assign the wrong phone numbers to the activated sim.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Jim Troutman]

FCC Definition of “broadband Internet” always lags behind the reality of
actual user needs, by about a decade.


Various sources show that Internet bandwidth consumption increases at about
29% CAGR.


If you extrapolate from the previous increases and intervals of the FCC's
changes, the definition of broadband should be a minimum of 100Mbit/100Mbit
in 2021.


When I hear incumbent providers insisting that 25/3 is still good enough,
my answer is: "sure, I can agree with that, if you can do that PER DEVICE
in the home."


They don't like that argument.


The only reason 25/3 is still the FCC definition is because of lobbying by
those that are still limited by twisted pair copper infrastructure.



On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:40 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG 
wrote:

> I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just
> "almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or
> even 50 of upload.
>
> 100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to
> accomplish the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas.
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 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.
>>
>>

-- 
Jim Troutman,
jamesltrout...@gmail.com
Pronouns: he/him/his
207-514-5676 (cell)

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

At least 100/100.

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

—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



> On May 27, 2021, at 5:29 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: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Ryan Gasik]

I've been deploying the 7210 SAS S and Sx for a while now as MPLS PEs.
I haven't had any major issues. Mixes well with our existing Juniper
infrastructure.
--ryan

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 6:26 AM Thomas Scott  wrote:
>
> Second vote for the Nokia 7200 line, their price points are hard to beat. The 
> 7250 was originally designed (per the Nokia reps I've talked to) to be a data 
> center switch, but I've seen more than one MSO deploy them in the field to 
> great effect. They also make fantastic satellite boxes for their 7750 
> chassis. The 7210 is definitely older, but is a fantastic little MPLS PE 
> router.
>
> SRoS is also easy to pickup, considering it was written by ex-Juniper and 
> Cisco employees (TiMetra/TiMos if I recall correctly?)
>
> - Thomas Scott | mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 7:10 AM Brandon Martin  
> wrote:
>>
>> On 5/26/21 12:39 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>> > Ciena seems to have multiple options available with Segment Routing,
>> > MPLS, and streaming telemetry support. I am probably most interested
>> > in what Ciena has to offer. Has anyone deployed the 3000 or 5000
>> > product line of Ciena? How does it compare to Juniper? The Ciena 3924
>> > is sub $1000 for example, and has 4 10G ports on it.
>>
>> I've used the Ciena 3000 series switches as NIDs a fair bit and have no
>> real complaints about them aside from TAC being a bit loathe to give out
>> new versions of SAOS even when the version you've got deployed is going
>> EOL.  I've not used the MPLS functionality mostly because it's a pricey
>> software license add-on and I can get by without, but the MEF and
>> associated carrier-oriented Ethernet functionality seems to be pretty
>> much top notch in terms of feature set, stability, and configurability.
>> I mostly use the 3928 though partially because the 3924 is new enough it
>> didn't make it into my standard build-out BOM.  The 3928 does also have
>> redundant PSU (fixed, but there are two) if that matters to you.  At
>> sub-$1000, the 3924 is a good deal in comparison if it'll do what you need.
>>
>> If you've never used them, you might find the config language a bit
>> annoying in that it's more Yoda syntax than Cisco, but it's also more
>> consistent than Cisco (what isn't?), so it's got that going for it.
>> Documentation is alright.  TAC is responsive to inquiries.
>>
>> --
>> Brandon Martin
>>

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Chris Adams (IT)]

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  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 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

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


From: "Sean Donelan" 
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.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Jason Canady]

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

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


*From: *"Sean Donelan" 
*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.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

I don't think it needs to change. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Sean Donelan"  
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.