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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 6/1/22 8:12 PM, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:
Believe it or not, there is cable within 500 yards, but they won’t 
extend it. (:



50 feet across the street from me on the east side of the road is AT 
FTTH territory. My side of the street is not. F the west side apparently.

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

[Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG]

Believe it or not, there is cable within 500 yards, but they won’t extend it. (:

 

Mitch

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of John 
Schiel
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:42 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

 

Terrain has a lot to do with the service you can get. Twenty five miles west of 
Denver are technically foothills but it is a lot of mountainous terrain. No 
company wants to run any cable up there. 

--John

On 5/24/22 09:48, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:

I have two fixed wireless Internet connections here.  One is 25/5, the other is 
35/5.  There is no cable, no fiber, no cellular, not even DSL from the phone 
company.  That is reality in metro Denver, CO (actually, the foothills, 25 
miles from the state Capitol building).

 

Regarding Starlink, no, you can’t get it.  I paid my deposit a year and a half 
ago and I am still on the waiting list.  Every time that I get close to the 
date they promise, they change the promise. Maybe I will get Starlink service 
some time in the future, but, not any time soon.

 

Oh, yeah, and 25 meg down costs $75 a month.  If you want VoIP, that is another 
$20+.

 

So not only is it slow, it is expensive too.

 

So yes, there still is a problem, right here in America.  And not just in the 
boonies.

 

Mitch

 

From: NANOG   
 On Behalf Of Matthew Huff
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Brian Turnbow   ; David Bass  
 ; Sean Donelan  
 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org  
Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

 

I grew up in rural Texas where my mother still lives. She has adequate speed 
internet, the biggest issue is reliability. The whole town (there is only 1 
provider) has an outage for about an hour every week. Two weeks ago, there was 
no internet for 3 days. Cellular service is 4G and not even that reliable for 
data even on the best days.

 

From: NANOG mailto:nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Brian Turnbow via 
NANOG
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:35 AM
To: David Bass mailto:davidbass...@gmail.com> >; Sean 
Donelan mailto:s...@donelan.com> >
Cc: nanog@nanog.org  
Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

 

Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband.

Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, 
for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds

The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays.

On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps 
service

Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 
2.5 nic or router,  so now all of the major providers are rolling it out.

Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing  a 5Gbps service and now I 
get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure marketing…

I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we 
even get near the limits.

It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a 
cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso..

The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all 

Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme.

 

The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 
100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to 
use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .  

 

The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume the 
10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer.  Even “business 
class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.  

 

We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s 
been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see 
issues. 

 

I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. 

 

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased 
as part of that.  We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient 
for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though. 

 

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan mailto:s...@donelan.com> > wrote:


Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" 
return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural and 
tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed 
broadband.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals 
will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower total 
cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for 

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

[John Schiel]

Terrain has a lot to do with the service you can get. Twenty five miles 
west of Denver are technically foothills but it is a lot of mountainous 
terrain. No company wants to run any cable up there.


--John

On 5/24/22 09:48, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:


I have two fixed wireless Internet connections here.  One is 25/5, the 
other is 35/5.  There is no cable, no fiber, no cellular, not even DSL 
from the phone company.  That is reality in metro Denver, CO 
(actually, the foothills, 25 miles from the state Capitol building).


Regarding Starlink, no, you can’t get it.  I paid my deposit a year 
and a half ago and I am still on the waiting list.  Every time that I 
get close to the date they promise, they change the promise. Maybe I 
will get Starlink service some time in the future, but, not any time soon.


Oh, yeah, and 25 meg down costs $75 a month.  If you want VoIP, that 
is another $20+.


So not only is it slow, it is expensive too.

So yes, there still is a problem, right here in America.  And not just 
in the boonies.


Mitch

*From:*NANOG  *On Behalf 
Of *Matthew Huff

*Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM
*To:* Brian Turnbow ; David Bass 
; Sean Donelan 

*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF 
providers


I grew up in rural Texas where my mother still lives. She has adequate 
speed internet, the biggest issue is reliability. The whole town 
(there is only 1 provider) has an outage for about an hour every week. 
Two weeks ago, there was no internet for 3 days. Cellular service is 
4G and not even that reliable for data even on the best days.


*From:*NANOG  *On Behalf Of 
*Brian Turnbow via NANOG

*Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:35 AM
*To:* David Bass ; Sean Donelan 
*Cc:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF 
providers


Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better 
broadband.


Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on 
investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit 
speeds


The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays.

On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 
2.5Gbps service


Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t 
have a 2.5 nic or router,  so now all of the major providers are 
rolling it out.


Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing  a 5Gbps service 
and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure 
marketing…


I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family 
rarely do we even get near the limits.


It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and 
get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style 
espresso..


The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all

Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme.

The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or 
even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently 
are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .


The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to 
consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential 
customer.  Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor 
upload bandwidth limit.


We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but 
there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and 
we start to see issues.


I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically 
increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would 
likely be sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at 
this point though.


On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:


Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the
"worst"
return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural
and
tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed
broadband.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to
serve.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated
proposals
will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower
total
cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for
the first 10 years of subsidies.  [massive over-simplification]

Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion
(abandoned,
incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>> Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
 >> enough for anybody.

The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a 
point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & 
any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were a 
policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the 
future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and applications, 
I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too long a timeframe) 
and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR could be derived from a 
sample across multiple networks or countries. In practice, that would mean 
looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US and DS and then projecting that 
growth rate into future years. So if you say 35% CAGR for both US and DS and 
project out the commonplace need/usage then 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as 
follows below. If some new apps emerge that start driving something like US at 
a higher CAGR then future years automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.

Of course 100/10 is an arbitrary benchmark for illustrative purposes, as is the 
suggested 35% CAGR. I suspect that in the case of US, the Internet will see 
much more significant growth in US demand and that new applications will emerge 
to take advantage of that & further drive demand growth (similarly for low 
latency networking).

Jason

DS
2022100
2023135
2024182
2025246
2026332
2027448
2028605
2029817
20301,103
20311,489
20322,011

US
202210
202314
202418
202525
202633
202745
202861
202982
2030110
2031149
2032201

/eom

Comcast: "Reloading Statics" today

[Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG]

Just a heads-up for the Comcast crew lurking here...

I've had 3 different cable connections (Oregon and Washington State) go
down in the last ~1.5 hours.
Staff on-site have tried rebooting the modem with no success.
When we call support, they say something along the lines of "huh, that's
odd...your modem is online, but the statics aren't loaded".
They then proceed to reload the statics and everything comes back up.

The third time I commented to the support rep that this was my third call
today and she replied that she had taken "several" calls about the same
issue from other customers.

Not sure if there's a new firmware update going our or what, but the issue
appears to be on the Comcast end.

-A

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/1/22 10:10 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:

On 5/23/22 12:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US 
household will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just 
jump it to a gig or more?



Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of 
bandwidth?



I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But 
no, upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local 
cable company maxes out at 20Mbps upload, and AT stopped their FTTH 
deployment literally across the street from me with no signs of 
further expansion.


Yeah, upstream is a complete joke and the pandemic showed how wrong the 
excuses were.


Mike

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

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:10 PM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 5/23/22 12:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> >
> > On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
> >> The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US
> >> household will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump
> >> it to a gig or more?
> >
> >
> > Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of
> > bandwidth?
>
>
this seems like the wrong question to ask. Or at least a short-sighted
question.
One question to ask is:
  "If I have to upgrade from X to 1gbps for my infrastructure over the next
5 years, what's the outlay in capex/opex?"

followed by:
  "What's my cost recovery plan now that I know what the bill will be?"

Some of that might be USF, some might be fees from subscribers, etc.

Being a gatekeeper to what folk can do at home seems ... not
terrific, though.


> I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But no,
> upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local cable
>

having symmetric speeds over 20mbps certainly is nice, as a user living in
that world.

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

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

That’s true of every large game I play these days as well.

Obviously there may be game developers that remain stupid and I suggest that’s 
an issue to take up with them rather than an
issue that is relevant to this debate.

Owen


> On May 31, 2022, at 08:06 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> "However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 
> 3.5” floppies at one point."
> 
> 
> But you can still get incremental Windows Updates and don't have to 
> redownload Windows any time something changes.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG" 
> To: "Michael Thomas" 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:26:39 AM
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
> 
> 
> > I agree that it probably doesn't change much for the ISP's (my rural ISP 
> > installing fiber apparently disagrees tho). The thing is that if you're 
> > talking about downloads, the game manufacturers will just fill to whatever 
> > available capacity the pipes will give so it probably won't ever get better.
> 
> I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available 
> download bandwidth. I think that games have gotten richer and the graphics 
> environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a 
> point where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of 
> being shipped on multiple discs.
> 
> However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 
> 3.5” floppies at one point.
> 
> However, yes, a download will fill whatever bandwidth is available for as 
> long as the download takes. If you’ve got 1Gpbs, the download will take 
> significantly less time than if you have 100Mbps.
> 
> > Maybe there a Next Big Thing that will be an even bigger bandwidth eater 
> > than video. But I get the bigger limitation these days for a lot of people 
> > is latency rather than bandwidth. That of course is harder to deal with.
> 
> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low 
> bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
> 
> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem, but it does actually help 
> some in that it reduces the duration of things other customers do to cause 
> congestion which increases latency.
> 
> Owen

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

[Seth Mattinen]

On 5/23/22 12:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US 
household will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump 
it to a gig or more?



Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of 
bandwidth?



I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But no, 
upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local cable 
company maxes out at 20Mbps upload, and AT stopped their FTTH 
deployment literally across the street from me with no signs of further 
expansion.