Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:02:02PM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: [...] > Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The > post I was replying to favored a future where all providers converged > on one infrastructure. I was saying that wasn't likely to happen. If there's any

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

Mark Tinka wrote: > Which is the Stokab model. Does it use single star? The city should provide base infrastructure, lease it to operators at the same price, and get out of the way. End of. With single star topology, that's fine. However, with PON, only the provider with the largest share

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On 6/2/21 18:12, William Herrin wrote: If you were to structure muni broadband to enhance competition rather than limit it, you might get a different result. For example, if municipalities installed and leased fiber optic cables to every structure but didn't provide any services on those

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:14 PM Josh Luthman wrote: > Do you not see the irony here? It's suggested the government comes in and > delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying > they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years. > > Isn't the request actually to better

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

the large providers with direct peerings. ] > On 20210602, at 16:57, Scott Morizot wrote: [..] > My large organization [..] > I know our Internet email team [..] You are hitting it right on the head as I noted in my previous comment: you have multiple (and then possibly even >10) pe

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Do you not see the irony here? It's suggested the government comes in and delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years. Grants and federal funds are available. It's a massive amount of work to get them, at which point

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 2:00 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or corn silo and that one tower will cover a huge area by line of sight. There will be nothing like you describe as each AP has separate frequency and therefore no conflict. The gear is

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Then honestly we should organize and do a better job. Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds, etc. We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27 years. Anyone interested, reach out. We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Josh Luthman: > CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct. the way that i interpret it, it does not require phone service but does still offer grants for phone service. anyway, that is irrelevant. the point is that grants are

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

Once upon a time, William Herrin said: > A comparable Internet setup would be where the municipality implements > a local network distribution service and then you buy from the > Internet provider of your choice. That's sort of how it works where I live. The city-owned non-profit utility

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Baldur, Mike and I operate WISPs with dozens/hundreds of towers. We both operate fiber networks as well. What you've stated is simply inaccurate. Ubiquiti uses TDD for the last several years. It's not WiFi nor can you work with 802.11 devices as stations. Just because it has a separate

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I am well versed in how WISPs work. Ubiquiti, Cambium, Mikrotik, Radwin, etc. they all have at least one product line that uses a modified version of WiFi that works exactly in the way I described (well, a lesser extent for Mikrotik). In those modes, a WiFi-only device will *not* work in any

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

This wouldn't be for the purposes of entering a new market, but an opportunity to shed your high-cost legacy infrastructure and provide better service in existing markets. Getting the incumbents on-board certainly isn't a requirement. The post I was replying to favored a future where all

Re: BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

On 6/2/21 4:35 AM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG wrote: Maybe you can explore the in kernel feature call RP filter or reverse path filter. In router gear it's called uRPF. cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/rp_filter +100 to rp_filter There are 2 modes: Loose or strict. If your server is BGP

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or corn silo and that one tower will cover a huge area by line of sight. There will be nothing like you describe as each AP has separate frequency and therefore no conflict. The gear is more or less standard wifi, often Ubiquity.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:25 PM Josh Luthman wrote: > CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct. > >> >> this seems like a useless engagement in hair splitting for the purposes that don't actually make the original argument void. My larger point here is that some time

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 4:11 PM Mike Hammett wrote: > The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile > fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators > wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, > post-construction, etc. > >

Re: BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server

On 6/2/21 12:39 AM, William Herrin wrote: I think you may be misunderstanding BCP 38. BCP 38 is about limiting -source- addresses. What you've described is bogon filtering on destination IP addresses. As far as I know, there's no BCP on bogon filtering although BCP 84 offers some relevant

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

The government entities that I've known of building middle or last-mile fiber infrastructure have reported that none of the incumbent operators wanted anything to do with it. Not during planning, construction, post-construction, etc. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

Hi, Glass and Copper (and aluminum) infrastructure is a natural monopoly, similar to water service. It was purely by chance IMHO that we ended up with Cable Co and Tel Co internet competing with each other in many locations in the US. That was aided by the following: * Technology for TV

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

" All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be redirected to voip and internet." Given that the government has been terrible at picking winner and losers, we're better off just shutting the whole thing down than expanding it. "grantees are not required to

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

To have any sort of scalability, you take the free-for-all CSMA/CA and split it into uplink\downlink TDMA time slots. All APs transmit at the same time, then all APs listen at the same time. You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the system. To change the

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman: > Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking. > > If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have > this current situation where not everyone has fiber? > > To answer your question, there is

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM heasley wrote: > Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman: > > Phone is

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:46 AM Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > > Muni broadband sucks for several reasons but the most important one is: > > > > Competition. Municipal broadband eliminates it. If it's not obvious > > why, feel free to Google how competition and monopolization impact > > product quality.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:05 PM Josh Luthman wrote: > WISP is not symmetrical. Wireless isn't symmetrical. Nor is cable/dsl. > DSL splits the available frequencies into downstream and upstream, such that usually much more frequencies are allocated downstream. Wifi on the other hand does no

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

"New applications could be developed, or new ways of using the bandwidth could be possible, if only the bandwidth existed." That bandwidth is available to a sufficient number of people that bandwidth availability isn't an impediment to any development. Some people had broadband, then came

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Cost no object, sure. However, cost is always an object, so now we have to get more naunced. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Josh Luthman" Cc:

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

WISP is not symmetrical. Wireless isn't symmetrical. Nor is cable/dsl. WiFi 6E should have MU-MIMO which is something the WISPs have had for a few years, but not on equipment that speaks 802.11 WiFi. That protocol wasn't really designed to do 1-15 miles, it was designed for 1-150 feet. That

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking. If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have this current situation where not everyone has fiber? To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies (AT, Frontier, CenturyLink).

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Ethernet AUI , LOL

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote: Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. >>> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband >>> suck? >>> >>> Personally I

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

>> On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote: >>> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. >> Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband >> suck? >> >> Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like >> the

Office Depot contact?

Howdy folks, If anyone from Office Depot NetOps is lurking, could you please reach out to me off-list? Looks like our whole AS is getting blocked somewhere ... Thank you! - bryan

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jared Brown wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote: > > Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. > Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband > suck? > > Personally I wouldn't mind more

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett : > > Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP > capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x... > for something that isn't needed. > I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/2021 6:19 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: While I don't have any stats to back it up myself, one of my fixed wireless colleagues reported moving nearly a whole neighborhood from 25 meg fixed wireless to 200 - 500 meg fiber. The 95th% usage changed approximately 10%. - Mike Hammett

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:54 AM Bjørn Mork wrote: > Jeroen Massar via NANOG writes: > > > For many organisations DNSSEC is 'scary' and a burden as it feels > > 'fragile' for them. > > For "many"? Can you name one that doesn't feel like that? > >

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 04:44, Peter Kristolaitis wrote: On 2021-06-02 4:25 a.m., Mark Tinka wrote: On 6/1/21 20:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: How about the farmer using an HD or 4k drone with WAPs on his center pivot irrigation sprinklers to monitor crops? Or monitor the cattle herd that is currently

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 16:35, Josh Luthman wrote: Oh I see where you're coming from. "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is ever actually free.  In other words, making it affordable for everyone comes at a cost to everyone. See:

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:37 AM Josh Luthman wrote: > Oh I see where you're coming from. > > "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is > ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone > comes at a cost to everyone. > >> >> isn't much of the

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

On 2021-06-02 15:47, Bjørn Mork wrote: Jeroen Massar via NANOG writes: For many organisations DNSSEC is 'scary' and a burden as it feels 'fragile' for them. For "many"? Can you name one that doesn't feel like that? Large organisations with 24/7 NOC teams where at least a few folks work

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Oh I see where you're coming from. "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone comes at a cost to everyone. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch Josh

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets > solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets > fiber internet. They both get fiber internet and chose where to live, so sure why not? Why are so many of us in the US so against something

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/2021 10:50 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a formula. An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to 80% of the

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 15:53, Josh Luthman wrote: "If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch.  If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps. Nobody says we should

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 15:46, Josh Luthman wrote: Netflix has a different library in the US versus UK: https://surfshark.com/blog/netflix-uk-vs-us Practically, not sure this matters. There are a lot more titles on Netflix than we shall ever be able to

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps. To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

Jeroen Massar via NANOG writes: > For many organisations DNSSEC is 'scary' and a burden as it feels > 'fragile' for them. For "many"? Can you name one that doesn't feel like that? https://www.arin.net/vault/announcements/2019/20190204.html

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Netflix has a different library in the US versus UK: https://surfshark.com/blog/netflix-uk-vs-us Various countries have different speeds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds#Fixed_broadband It's hard to compare data when the underlying variables are

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote: I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second).  Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has. Cost aside, I'm sure you'd want everyone to have fibre it was affordable. Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply

FCC RFP issued for Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric with responses due July 1, 2021

June 1, 2021 - Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric Contract Solicited Request for Proposal issued for Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric with responses due July 1, 2021 https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 15:25, Josh Luthman wrote: I think going to other countries gets us a different market (ie less video content/quality, probably significantly less upload due to 384k rates, etc). Huh? Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Haudy, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338708A1.pdf Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:50 PM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. >

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Scott, Are you willing to lend that money interest free? Are you running that network for $0/mo? How are you getting free bandwidth? What are the chances 100% of your customers have 0 problems, pay on time every day? That 14 years turns into 30 very quickly. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk:

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second). Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has. Signed, someone deploying rural fiber. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:33 AM

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I think going to other countries gets us a different market (ie less video content/quality, probably significantly less upload due to 384k rates, etc). I suppose if you're trying to push an agenda it might be a good idea, but I can't imagine a reason we'd want to compare other countries *_*usage_

Re: BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

    And by that he means: "only a few" =D. - Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. 50 boul. St-Charles P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7 Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443 On 6/2/21 12:40 AM, Stephen Satchell

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

The "definition" of broadband is almost exclusively used in reporting. It usually is not the definition used for minimum requirements for funding builds. It's what is used to determine where to build, not what is built. That's why I've been so persistent in this thread. The expansion of

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

On 6/2/21 11:07, Jeroen Massar via NANOG wrote: As for solutions: better education, more improvements to the tools & making it easier. CDS records already help a lot. But we might also need to improve recovery mechanisms, as f-ups are made, and you don't want to be off this Internet thing

Re: Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On 6/2/21 14:27, Jared Brown wrote: Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck? Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs of yesterday. Same here. Municipal broadband promotes the ability

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 13:19, Mike Hammett wrote: While I don't have any stats to back it up myself, one of my fixed wireless colleagues reported moving nearly a whole neighborhood from 25 meg fixed wireless to 200 - 500 meg fiber. The 95th% usage changed approximately 10%. It's kind of like

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Sunday, 30 May 2021 Mike Hammet wrote: > Why 100/100? Because subsidies should only be used for long term solutions. The definition of broadband is mainly relevant to determine who should receive subsidies. Commercial broadband has already far surpassed the minimums. - Jared

Muni broadband sucks (was: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote: > Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband suck? Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like the dry copper pairs

Re: DANE of SMTP Survey

> On 20210601, at 15:15, Moritz Müller via NANOG wrote: > > Hi, > > DANE for SMTP is not deployed on large scale. Together with researchers from > Seoul National University, Virginia Tech and the University of Twente, we > would like to understand which challenges operators face when

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

While I don't have any stats to back it up myself, one of my fixed wireless colleagues reported moving nearly a whole neighborhood from 25 meg fixed wireless to 200 - 500 meg fiber. The 95th% usage changed approximately 10%. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions

RE: BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

Maybe you can explore the in kernel feature call RP filter or reverse path filter. In router gear it's called uRPF. cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/default/rp_filter There are 2 modes: Loose or strict. If your server is BGP multi-homed, then you must use loose. Loose is still very powerful and

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 10:44, Peter Kristolaitis wrote: Of course it is.  Commonly referred to as SaaS -- Steak As A Service.   You order whatever type of steak you want, then the vendor manages the rest for you -- allocating a slice of the hardware, managing the entire lifecycle from system assembly

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote: I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition. If we can't even agree on what

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 01:33 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 6/2/21 05:50, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: > >> I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. >> >> Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median >> latency and packet loss rates (both

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 2021-06-02 4:25 a.m., Mark Tinka wrote: On 6/1/21 20:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: How about the farmer using an HD or 4k drone with WAPs on his center pivot irrigation sprinklers to monitor crops? Or monitor the cattle herd that is currently growing the next T-bone or porterhouse steak you’ll

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 05:50, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP code to the top 10 websites), data

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/2/21 02:47, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long break-even schedule when short-term profits get emphasized. Make sure they are born and raised in Japan? Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 23:26, Mike Hammett wrote: My family farms. I can see some of the cattle out of my office window. That's not really a thing. You might be able to find a couple of magazine articles with it, but farmers don't do that, even when capacity is available. Not because they can't, but

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 20:46, Andy Ringsmuth wrote: How about the farmer using an HD or 4k drone with WAPs on his center pivot irrigation sprinklers to monitor crops? Or monitor the cattle herd that is currently growing the next T-bone or porterhouse steak you’ll be eating? Is that a thing? Just

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 20:36, Jim Troutman wrote: I also believe that ISPs need to manage the customer’s WiFi most of the time, because it is a is huge part of the end-user’s quality of experience.  WiFi 6E will go a long way towards reducing interference and channel congestion and making “auto channel”

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Josh, A city can build a competitive service that is revenue neutral or even a source of income for the city without causing the earth to shift on its axis. Often, in fact, government is in a position to make large up-front capital investments in infrastructure that don’t have a fast enough

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 20:27, Chris Adams (IT) wrote: This short term mindset is part of the problem. Welcome to capitalism :-). Those quarterly earnings calls aren't just for the laugh, hehe... Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 20:13, james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: Of course, this is because the “industry” is driven short term profits and can not vision the eventual dispersion of remote workers begun in earnest about a year and which could result in longer term return on investment. I miss the old

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 19:40, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote: I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office… I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative.  (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency.  The 3ms ping in my

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 19:38, Raymond Burkholder wrote: On 6/1/21 11:33 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work. And that might be the crux: 'just make it work'. In 2010 when we were

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 19:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote: While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber water and power to every human remains. I am reasonably certain that every NANOG

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 19:20, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote: I’m building a network to out-last me… Are other people not doing this? If they aren't doing it, it's not for a lack of desire. In much of the real world, money is your handicap. How can it be that so many fine minds don’t see

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 19:14, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett > wrote: That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone? There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 18:18, aar...@gvtc.com wrote: Yeah I thought gpon was 2.4 ghz down and 1.2 ghz up... so you could only honestly sell (1) 1 gbps symm service via that gpon interface correct? (without oversubscription) It's not about what the OLT can do, it's about what your customers will do,

Re: BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:47 PM Stephen Satchell wrote: > Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route > specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would > perform the egress blocking for an edge server. > > The table of blackhole routes I would set