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

[Eric Kuhnke]

At this point I don't think we can reasonably expect something like an
online purchased game from the Microsoft store for somebody's new Xbox
Series X to *not* be a 150GB download. There's a number of games out there
like that. And if people only have 25 to 50Mbps downstream they absolutely
will complain that it takes way too long.

We may not conceptually agree with it but that is certainly what the game
developers are doing and publishing.



On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 12:05, Paul Timmins  wrote:

> How many times have I seen an installer only download the parts it needs
> vs just reinstall the next version right over top of the existing
> version? I know stuff like xplane seems to do a comparison of file
> signatures and only downloads the changed parts for the updates between
> whatever version I have and whatever version is current now, but I'd
> imagine a lot of installers these days just take advantage of the fact
> the user has a super fast connection and they don't have to care about
> shipping the entire new installer just to run an update.
>
> Not to mention whatever amounts of shovelware come with a few megabyte
> print driver for a modern printer/scanner/copier. Let's just include a
> copy of McAfee endpoint protection in this java update in case the user
> opts into selecting that as an option during install? etc.
>
> -Paul
>
> On 6/6/22 14:24, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:
> >> I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
> >> bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
> >> downloads.
> > I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on
> > consoles.
>

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

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:55 AM Livingood, Jason
 wrote:
>
> > I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's
> only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download?
>
> I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate 
> and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory 
> changing.

Dennard scaling ended in 2006. The US birthrate is negative. Wage
growth is illusory. There are only 16 hours in a day where content can
be consumed, and time on the internet is at an all time high.

> JL
>


-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases 
> helpful to this discussion?
(this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to 
interject)
> Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR 
> based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing.
most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping:
> "Well, who needs that anyway?"

Good point. IMO, trying to guess at user needs is a bit of a fool's errand, 
because user needs are so diverse and constantly changing based on the 
push-pull of their interests and application capabilities. So I don’t think it 
is even worth trying. Rather, if you are building a network or giving grants to 
support that, make sure the network technology is flexible/adaptive to be able 
to grow capacity over time, and then define some required minimum of per-home 
capacity based on the trailing CAGR formula I proposed. That'll be good enough 
& adapts based on user demand/behavior and app availability/capability.

JL

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's
only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download?

I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate 
and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory 
changing.

JL

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

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:24 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG
 wrote:
>
> A related observation – years ago we gave cable modem bootfiles to a group of 
> customers that had no rate shaping according to their subscription and 
> compared that to existing customers (with an academic researcher). The 
> experiment group did not know of the change, so it could not influence their 
> behavior. We observed that peak demand generally hit a plateau that was well 
> below available capacity & this was driven by existing applications & 
> associated user behavior. There’s obviously a chicken-or-egg problem with 
> capacity & apps to use that capacity, but most ISPs raise end user speeds at 
> least annually and try to stay ahead of increases in peak demand.

I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's
only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download?

My curve seems closer to a doubling of the average usage over 10
years. It would be really radical of me to
start yelling "peak bandwidth" a la peak oil without more study...

A very informal survey of those that had deployed higher rates on
mikrotik stuff at WISPAMERICA had all 5 of the people rolling their
eyes and saying avg downloads had gone from 2 to 3Mbit upon doubling
or more their allocated bandwidth, and they had no congestive issues
on their network peering.

There was also a technical limitation in the mikrotik deployment in
that they use very short queues by default (50 packets) for either the
fifo or (the common) SFQ deployments. Shapers were universally used by
this small group, and they were
unaware of the sideffects of such short queues.  I also took apart a
recent ubnt 60Ghz radio's behaviors, and that was FQ'd
and also with very short queues... and what looked like ack
synthesis... with no options to change the configuration. I am
thinking in part the lack of measured WISP "demand" for more bandwidth
is in part due to overly short (as opposed to bufferbloated) queues!

There's a really long  thread over here with the mikrotik userbase
going to town on fq_codel and cake:
https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=937633#p925485

>
>
> JL
>
>
>
> From: NANOG  on 
> behalf of Jim Troutman 
> Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 19:29
> To: Tony Wicks 
> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
>
>
>
> Some usage data:
>
>
>
> On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I 
> see about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about 
> 10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero congestion in middle mile, 
> transit or peering.
>
>



-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

A related observation – years ago we gave cable modem bootfiles to a group of 
customers that had no rate shaping according to their subscription and compared 
that to existing customers (with an academic researcher). The experiment group 
did not know of the change, so it could not influence their behavior. We 
observed that peak demand generally hit a plateau that was well below available 
capacity & this was driven by existing applications & associated user behavior. 
There’s obviously a chicken-or-egg problem with capacity & apps to use that 
capacity, but most ISPs raise end user speeds at least annually and try to stay 
ahead of increases in peak demand.

JL

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Jim Troutman 
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 19:29
To: Tony Wicks 
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I see 
about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about 
10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero congestion in middle mile, 
transit or peering.

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

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Faster off the line then more open connections are always available putting 
less strain on providers and endpoints allowing them to serve more people right 
off the line.

But we all know where bandwidth goes... once it's increased. ;)

-- 

J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.






> On Jun 7, 2022, at 09:45, Denis Fondras  wrote:
> 
> Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :
>> Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour? 
>> 
> 
> Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes.
> Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55
> minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes.
> 
> Peace of mind is under-rated :)
> 
>> 
>> What's the OneDrive rate limit? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - 
>> Mike Hammett 
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>> Midwest-IX 
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> 
>> From: "Tony Wicks"  
>> To: nanog@nanog.org 
>> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM 
>> Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to 
>>> imagine downloads filling to available capacity. 
>>> Mike 
>> 
>> So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
>> pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked 
>> me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I 
>> have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
>> connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
>> folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how 
>> fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these 
>> speeds its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just 
>> works. 

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

[Andrew Odlyzko via NANOG]

Yes, human impatience and peace of mind do matter.

But willingness to pay is not unlimited.  There is
an argument, presented in my paper "The volume and
value of information," in the International Journal
of Communication in 2012,

https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1570/740

that value is roughly logarithmic in volume (or speed).
So going from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps is like going from 8 to 9,
whereas moving from 10 Kbps to 100 Kbps was like going
from 4 to 5.

Andrew



On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, Denis Fondras wrote:


Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :

Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour?



Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes.
Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55
minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes.

Peace of mind is under-rated :)



What's the OneDrive rate limit?




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Tony Wicks" 
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM
Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers




This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine 
downloads filling to available capacity.
Mike


So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me 
to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 
4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast 
you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its 
not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

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

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:47 AM Denis Fondras  wrote:
>
> Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :
> > Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour?
> >
>
> Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes.
> Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55
> minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes.
>
> Peace of mind is under-rated :)

I have often wished rsync was the default file transfer protocol.

> >
> > What's the OneDrive rate limit?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > - Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Tony Wicks" 
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM
> > Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
> >
> >
> >
> > >This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to 
> > >imagine downloads filling to available capacity.
> > >Mike
> >
> > So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
> > pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked 
> > me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I 
> > have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
> > connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
> > folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how 
> > fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these 
> > speeds its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything 
> > just works.



-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Denis Fondras]

Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :
> Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour? 
> 

Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes.
Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55
minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes.

Peace of mind is under-rated :)

> 
> What's the OneDrive rate limit? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Tony Wicks"  
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM 
> Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 
> 
> 
> 
> >This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine 
> >downloads filling to available capacity. 
> >Mike 
> 
> So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
> pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me 
> to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have 
> a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
> connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
> folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how 
> fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds 
> its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works. 

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

[Mike Hammett]

Vanity is what most of this is about. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: "Tony Wicks" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:13:25 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 




On 6/6/22 4:08 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: 






* Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after the 
build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic? 


Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP I seem 
to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now its about 3Mb/s 
so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically when the bottlenecks went 
away. A great example of this is the lowest speed on the GPON network recently 
jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 across the board and as an ISP we barely noticed 
anything. Before this the two most popular speeds were the 100/20 and 1000/500 
plans, 50% of users would order the 1000/500 plan, most without really knowing 
why but it was only about $20 different so why not. As an ISP the 1G users only 
used about 10%-20% more overall capacity than the 100/20 users. 



Excellent, so you're printing money catering to people's vanity :) 
Mike 

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

[Mike Hammett]

Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour? 


What's the OneDrive rate limit? 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Tony Wicks"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM 
Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 



>This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine 
>downloads filling to available capacity. 
>Mike 

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me 
to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 
4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast 
you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its 
not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works. 

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

[Masataka Ohta]

Dave Taht wrote:

"New Zealand is approximately 268,838 sq km, while United States is 
approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 3,558% larger

than New Zealand. Meanwhile, the population of New Zealand is ~4.9
million people (327.7 million more people live in United States)."


That NZ has less population density than US means the last mile
problem is more severe in NZ than US, though actual severity
depends on detailed population distribution.

Masataka Ohta

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

[Kauto Huopio]

+1 on symmetrical connections. On this corner of the planet many
(incumbent) ISPs which provide fiber service, throttle the uplink like
100/10 Mbit/s. There is no technical reason for the uplink limitation - the
ISPs are protecting their higher-revenue business label services. 10 Mbit/s
uplink is OK for a (single-person) remote working, but pushing backups or
using network drives from work is a quite a sluggish affair. I for one
would not use the uplink to host servers at home, but modern day remote
working has clear needs. Now, the difference of the cost of optics and at
least CPE side electronics is really minimal between gigabit and 100
Mbit/s. I've had a gigabit cable-based connectivity for couple of months on
my home far away from home and it is really nice when you do system
upgrades and other tasks which require moving hundreads of megabytes to
several G. Again, the needs are bursty.

--Kauto

On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:01 AM Jeff Shultz  wrote:

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


-- 
Kauto Huopio - ka...@huopio.fi

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 4:27 PM, Jim Troutman wrote:

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric 
customers, I see about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, 
peaks at about 10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero 
congestion in middle mile, transit or peering.


Can you tease out the cable cutters? That is, I would expect that you'll 
get more and more going forward until they are the vast majority.


I guess I could look at my own router's stats too :)

Mike

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

[Jim Troutman]

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I
see about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about
10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero congestion in middle mile,
transit or peering.

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 7:09 PM Tony Wicks  wrote:

>
>
>- Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after
>the build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic?
>
>
>
> Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP I
> seem to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now its
> about 3Mb/s so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically when the
> bottlenecks went away. A great example of this is the lowest speed on the
> GPON network recently jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 across the board and as
> an ISP we barely noticed anything.  Before this the two most popular speeds
> were the 100/20 and 1000/500 plans, 50% of users would order the 1000/500
> plan, most without really knowing why but it was only about $20 different
> so why not. As an ISP the 1G users only used about 10%-20% more overall
> capacity than the 100/20 users.
>
-- 
Jim Troutman,
jamesltrout...@gmail.com
Pronouns: he/him/his
207-514-5676 (cell)

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 4:08 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:


  * Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and
after the build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was
it dramatic?

Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP 
I seem to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now 
its about 3Mb/s so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically 
when the bottlenecks went away. A great example of this is the lowest 
speed on the GPON network recently jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 
across the board and as an ISP we barely noticed anything.  Before 
this the two most popular speeds were the 100/20 and 1000/500 plans, 
50% of users would order the 1000/500 plan, most without really 
knowing why but it was only about $20 different so why not. As an ISP 
the 1G users only used about 10%-20% more overall capacity than the 
100/20 users.



Excellent, so you're printing money catering to people's vanity :)

Mike

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

[Tony Wicks]

 

*   Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after 
the build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic?

 

Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP I seem 
to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now its about 3Mb/s 
so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically when the bottlenecks went 
away. A great example of this is the lowest speed on the GPON network recently 
jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 across the board and as an ISP we barely noticed 
anything.  Before this the two most popular speeds were the 100/20 and 1000/500 
plans, 50% of users would order the 1000/500 plan, most without really knowing 
why but it was only about $20 different so why not. As an ISP the 1G users only 
used about 10%-20% more overall capacity than the 100/20 users.  

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

[Tony Wicks]

>To finish up the math here, how much did NZ's fiber buildout cost?


I'm not suggesting that the US could build such a network, just that if its 
available it certainly opens up new levels of convenience and smooth use of the 
applications. I think it was something like $2-3B USD, don't quote me on that 
though.

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 3:36 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:


>This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to 
imagine downloads filling to available capacity.


>Mike

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we 
have a pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My 
niece asked me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s 
the other day. I have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got 
a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G 
directory into a one drive folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one 
drive is still limited in how fast you can upload) she had it all and 
she was very happy. With these speeds its not even a consideration to 
think about capacity, everything just works.


Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after the 
build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic?


Mike

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

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:38 PM Tony Wicks  wrote:
>
> >This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine 
> >downloads filling to available capacity.
>
> >Mike
>
>
>
> So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
> pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me 
> to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have 
> a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
> connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
> folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how 
> fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds 
> its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

"New Zealand is approximately 268,838 sq km, while United States is
approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 3,558% larger than
New Zealand. Meanwhile, the population of New Zealand is ~4.9 million
people (327.7 million more people live in United States)."

To finish up the math here, how much did NZ's fiber buildout cost?
-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Tony Wicks]

>This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine 
>downloads filling to available capacity. 

>Mike

 

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a 
pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me 
to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 
4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON 
connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive 
folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast 
you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its 
not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

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

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:37 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 6/6/22 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner
> > cases helpful to this discussion?
> > (this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place
> > to interject)
> >
> > Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan...
> > OR based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing.
> > most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping:
> >   "Well, who needs that anyway?"
>
>
> One takeaway for me on this thread is that once you've installed fiber
> the difference in cost between 1G and 100M is not very big if at all.
> That makes a good case for just doing it for future proofing.
>
>
probably true, but also docsis seems perfectly happy to do 1gbps (or more,
see atl comcast deployments of ~10 yrs ago?)
I expect that because of design things in cable plants you need 'moar
headends', but ok.

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

[Kord Martin]

Happy customers are also good for business. 

 

 

K

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Mike Hammett
Sent: June 6, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Brandon Butterworth 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

 

"I must have read different posts."

 

 

More likely, a lack of understanding. There's a difference between, "No one 
should have this" and "the government shouldn't be paying for people to have 
this at this time."  

 

 

"fortunate few who happen to be in the

good locations"

 

Most people live in locations where such a service could be reasonably 
delivered.

 

 

"A larger market is good for business, no?"

 

It is, but also good for business is not wasting money.

 

 

"Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying

degrees."

 

Keep up with what? Want or need?

 

 

 

 



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

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

 

  _  

From: "Brandon Butterworth" mailto:bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk> 
>
To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net> >
Cc: "Michael Thomas" mailto:m...@mtcc.com> >, nanog@nanog.org 
<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:27:54 AM
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> " I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
> more than we have today." 
> 
> Few to none are doing that.

I must have read different posts.

> Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're
> hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop
> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about
> ourselves. That's too expensive. 
 
I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with
you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones.

> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." 
> 
> Why should that be desirable? 

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to
everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the
good locations? A larger market is good for business, no?
Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to
the same resources others have.

> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" 
> 
> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good 
> enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is 
> good enough. 

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying
degrees.

DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up
deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle
the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling.
Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than
the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to
people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas
(lots are installing FTTH now)

Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is
a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in
steps up.

FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to
use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz
is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises.

All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly
quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in
use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever.

> "If you build it they will come." 
> 
> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? 

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast
in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide
equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so
we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making
proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it
provides.

> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the
> US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it
> would work for most Americans.

That's really good then, problem solved.

> Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking
> downstream capacity in the regulatory world

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the
Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the
same for upload?

> they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services
> do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change
> the regulatory environment over. 

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too
low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. 

If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical?

brandon

 

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

[Mike Hammett]

" I must have read different posts." 




More likely, a lack of understanding. There's a difference between, "No one 
should have this" and "the government shouldn't be paying for people to have 
this at this time." 




"fortunate few who happen to be in the 
good locations" 


Most people live in locations where such a service could be reasonably 
delivered. 




"A larger market is good for business, no?" 


It is, but also good for business is not wasting money. 




"Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying 
degrees." 


Keep up with what? Want or need? 










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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Brandon Butterworth"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Michael Thomas" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:27:54 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> " I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
> more than we have today." 
> 
> Few to none are doing that. 

I must have read different posts. 

> Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're 
> hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop 
> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about 
> ourselves. That's too expensive. 

I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with 
you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones. 

> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." 
> 
> Why should that be desirable? 

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to 
everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the 
good locations? A larger market is good for business, no? 
Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to 
the same resources others have. 

> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" 
> 
> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good 
> enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is 
> good enough. 

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying 
degrees. 

DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up 
deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle 
the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling. 
Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than 
the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to 
people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas 
(lots are installing FTTH now) 

Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is 
a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in 
steps up. 

FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to 
use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz 
is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises. 

All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly 
quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in 
use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever. 

> "If you build it they will come." 
> 
> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? 

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast 
in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide 
equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so 
we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making 
proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it 
provides. 

> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the 
> US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it 
> would work for most Americans. 

That's really good then, problem solved. 

> Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking 
> downstream capacity in the regulatory world 

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the 
Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the 
same for upload? 

> they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services 
> do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change 
> the regulatory environment over. 

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too 
low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. 

If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical? 

brandon 

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner 
cases helpful to this discussion?
(this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place 
to interject)


Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... 
OR based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing.

most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping:
  "Well, who needs that anyway?"



One takeaway for me on this thread is that once you've installed fiber 
the difference in cost between 1G and 100M is not very big if at all. 
That makes a good case for just doing it for future proofing.


Mike

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 11:45 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Agreed, even with a 16TB drive, that's only 16000*8 ~= 128000 seconds 
of 1-gigabit download rate (under 36 hours) :)



This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to 
imagine downloads filling to available capacity.


Mike



On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Chris Adams  wrote:

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:
> I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
> bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
> downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage,
especially on
consoles.
-- 
Chris Adams 

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

[Paul Timmins]

How many times have I seen an installer only download the parts it needs 
vs just reinstall the next version right over top of the existing 
version? I know stuff like xplane seems to do a comparison of file 
signatures and only downloads the changed parts for the updates between 
whatever version I have and whatever version is current now, but I'd 
imagine a lot of installers these days just take advantage of the fact 
the user has a super fast connection and they don't have to care about 
shipping the entire new installer just to run an update.


Not to mention whatever amounts of shovelware come with a few megabyte 
print driver for a modern printer/scanner/copier. Let's just include a 
copy of McAfee endpoint protection in this java update in case the user 
opts into selecting that as an option during install? etc.


-Paul

On 6/6/22 14:24, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:

I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on
consoles.

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

[Christopher Morrow]

is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases
helpful to this discussion?
(this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to
interject)

Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR
based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing.
most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping:
  "Well, who needs that anyway?"

or:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - in the form of:
"Well who can even use 8k anyway?" or similar.

-chris

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:45 PM Dorn Hetzel  wrote:

> Agreed, even with a 16TB drive, that's only 16000*8 ~= 128000 seconds of
> 1-gigabit download rate (under 36 hours) :)
>
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Chris Adams  wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:
>> > I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
>> > bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
>> > downloads.
>>
>> I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on
>> consoles.
>> --
>> Chris Adams 
>>
>

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

[Dorn Hetzel]

Agreed, even with a 16TB drive, that's only 16000*8 ~= 128000 seconds of
1-gigabit download rate (under 36 hours) :)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Chris Adams  wrote:

> Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:
> > I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
> > bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
> > downloads.
>
> I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on
> consoles.
> --
> Chris Adams 
>

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

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas  said:
> I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more
> bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game
> downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on
consoles.
-- 
Chris Adams 

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 10:40 AM, Casey Russell wrote:
Is it?  I mean, as an industry, we already recognize that the average 
user downloads approx. 5 times more than they upload.  In fact, we use 
it to bash users who want a synchronous speed... tell them that's 
unreasonable.


I get your point, that if you try to use the outliers corner cases as 
your "measure", that's a problem.  And I agree that game companies 
might get lazier in terms of efficiency and distribution methods.  I'm 
just saying we need to be careful to have the conversations, and be 
open to them.  We need to provide good, well-thought-out reasons, and 
justify our reluctance to hit "low profit" areas.  Especially when we 
work in a sector that's being provided billions of dollars a year to 
do that very thing.  Short quips like "Downloading is a really bad 
thing to use as a reason" overly simplify the (real) problems and 
needs down to insulting sound bytes when talking to the public.


I realize you're talking to an in-group here, and might not have said 
the same publicly, so I'm not being overly critical, it's just an 
observation to clarify my own point


I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more bandwidth 
it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game downloads. It's 
just not a very good example when you're talking about how much 
bandwidth the average user needs.


Mike

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

[Casey Russell via NANOG]

Is it?  I mean, as an industry, we already recognize that the average user
downloads approx. 5 times more than they upload.  In fact, we use it to
bash users who want a synchronous speed... tell them that's unreasonable.

I get your point, that if you try to use the outliers corner cases as your
"measure", that's a problem.  And I agree that game companies might get
lazier in terms of efficiency and distribution methods.  I'm just saying we
need to be careful to have the conversations, and be open to them.  We need
to provide good, well-thought-out reasons, and justify our reluctance to
hit "low profit" areas.  Especially when we work in a sector that's being
provided billions of dollars a year to do that very thing.  Short quips
like "Downloading is a really bad thing to use as a reason" overly simplify
the (real) problems and needs down to insulting sound bytes when talking to
the public.

I realize you're talking to an in-group here, and might not have said the
same publicly, so I'm not being overly critical, it's just an observation
to clarify my own point

Sincerely,
Casey Russell
Network Engineer

785-856-9809
2029 Becker Drive, Suite 282
Lawrence, Kansas 66047
XSEDE Campus Champion
Certified Software Carpentry Instructor
need support? 



On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 6/6/22 7:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:
>
>
>> For a long time now...
>>
>> I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
>> bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
>> with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
>> speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
>> firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
>> I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
>> 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
>> 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.
>>
>>
> One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.)
> can be over 80Gb of data.  That's half of your Saturday just waiting to
> play a game.  That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider
> isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home.  It also assumes your
> console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to
> download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after
> Christmas or a birthday).  I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might
> not look like much in a monthly average.  But I'd argue there are plenty of
> applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average
> families" already today, not seconds.
>
> And gig everywhere would just encourage them to make 8000GB downloads.
> Downloading is a really bad thing to use as a reason.
>
> Mike
>

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 7:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:



For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.


One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, 
etc.) can be over 80Gb of data.  That's half of your Saturday just 
waiting to play a game.  That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit 
(your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home.  It 
also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated 
when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a 
couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not 
a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly 
average.  But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit 
equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, 
not seconds.


And gig everywhere would just encourage them to make 8000GB downloads. 
Downloading is a really bad thing to use as a reason.


Mike

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/6/22 6:06 AM, Dave Taht wrote:

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:47 AM Masataka Ohta
 wrote:

Dave Taht wrote:


Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt
it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth
requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to
think about...

Required resolution of pictures is bounded by resolution of our
eyes, which is fixed.

For TVs at homes, IMHO, baseband 2k should be enough, quality of
which may be better than highly compressed 4k.

 Masataka Ohta

Yep. And despite our best efforts, nobody can hear the difference
between 48khz/24 bit audio and 96khz/24 bit audio. The difference
between 16 bit and 24 bit audio can be heard... but not so much on
bluetooth earbuds! Attempts to make 10 channel audio more popular
(like Atmos) appeal to a very narrow market.

Belshe's paper on "more bandwidth doesn't matter (much) from 2008:
https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/viewer?a=v=sites=Y2hyb21pdW0ub3JnfGRldnxneDoxMzcyOWI1N2I4YzI3NzE2

One thing to be said is that you could use more real estate instead of 
upping the resolution. like, having a jumbotron in your living room. 
will that be the next big thing? probably not, but it is a possibility


Mike

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

[Sean Donelan]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022, Kord Martin wrote:
After years and years of being told why it's not feasible to build out 
infrastructure upgrades to provide internet service, once I started to work 
in the industry it was pretty shocking to see how customers are actually 
treated. It's tough to gather context from the replies but I feel like most 
of the industry still sees internet service as a luxury, and not something 
potentially life-changing.


Maybe the CEOs of major tech firms should be required to use their own 
company's "lifeline" service for 30 days (for their entire family).


Most of those CEOs would bail after a couple of days (or move into the 
Four Seasons Hotel or work-from-home from their mansion in another country 
:-).

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

[Kord Martin]

On 2022-06-06 11:32 a.m., Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:


But my point was only that if we keep arguing against change and 
against pushing barriers, then we are what customers (or members) say 
we are.  obstinate, greedy, uncooperative, and unsupportive of their 
goals.  I don't think you're any of those things, I just think we need 
to stop setting limits FOR customers and be open to a conversation 
about how to get to (insert wild and crazy, super cool goal here).  
All the time being as realistic as we can about how to do that.


After years and years of being told why it's not feasible to build out 
infrastructure upgrades to provide internet service, once I started to 
work in the industry it was pretty shocking to see how customers are 
actually treated. It's tough to gather context from the replies but I 
feel like most of the industry still sees internet service as a luxury, 
and not something potentially life-changing.


It seems like a lot of people are still missing the mark on how people 
actually use the bandwidth. The biggest complaints I hear are from 
people who are learning, teaching, or working remotely, that struggle to 
do basic tasks like move files back and forth from a corporate share. 
You can tell them to "just go to the office", but why should they? WFH 
has become such a life-changing thing for a lot of people, why not 
enable that kind of productivity? Then there's a growing industry of 
content creation; uploading to YouTube, live streaming, online gaming, 
online collaboration. All of that stuff is impossible without sufficient 
bandwidth, especially in the upstream.


When I think about the WISPs that pop up to provide coverage to 
under-served areas and then just collecting the money from customers, 
with no plans to develop any infrastructure. Makes me think of that meme 
... "I want internet" then being told "we have internet at home" but 
it's a 5/1 WISP connection with 600ms pings and 40% uptime.


I don't think the regs need to mandate more speed, because of course 
MOST people will be totally satisfied with a basic connection, but I 
feel like providers have historically used that as an excuse to NOT 
provide a better service to customers that want or need it, where "good 
enough" just isn't good enough.


K

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

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> " I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
> more than we have today." 
> 
> Few to none are doing that.

I must have read different posts.

> Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're
> hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop
> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about
> ourselves. That's too expensive. 
 
I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with
you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones.

> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." 
> 
> Why should that be desirable? 

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to
everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the
good locations? A larger market is good for business, no?
Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to
the same resources others have.

> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" 
> 
> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good 
> enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is 
> good enough. 

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying
degrees.

DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up
deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle
the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling.
Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than
the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to
people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas
(lots are installing FTTH now)

Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is
a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in
steps up.

FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to
use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz
is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises.

All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly
quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in
use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever.

> "If you build it they will come." 
> 
> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? 

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast
in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide
equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so
we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making
proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it
provides.

> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the
> US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it
> would work for most Americans.

That's really good then, problem solved.

> Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking
> downstream capacity in the regulatory world

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the
Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the
same for upload?

> they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services
> do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change
> the regulatory environment over. 

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too
low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. 

If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical?

brandon

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

[Sean Donelan]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:

To be honest, I don't know, I'm not a money person, I just turn knobs.  But
apparently it costs more than $130 billion dollars.  In the US alone. 


If I had a magic wand, I would have a separate cap on each USF program 
including the High Cost Fund (formerly telco, now the Connect America 
Fund), and reduce the USF tax/fee on everyone's bill by 50%.


high cost (telco/connect america) $5,116 million (not capped)
e-Rate for schools & libraries$2,156 million (capped)
lifeline benefits $  723 million
rural health care connectivity$  556 million (capped)

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

[Sean Donelan]

USF money is about the bottom 1% not the top 1%.

I wouldn't be surprised if every Zuckerberg mansion worldwide has a 
multi-gig connection to support his Metaverse.


The top 50% will continue to drive innovation (and bandwidth demand).

Broadband service providers claim no ROI to build-out (regardless of 
technology) the tail of the long-tail (< 1%).  Wireless/Satellite may 
serve some rich & difficult to reach places, not hasn't help with poor & 
difficult places.


If you (as a taxpayer/ratepayer) are giving out $50 to $200/month 
broadband service provider incentives/subsidies, what is a reasonable 
expection of the minimum (not "up to") service levels (100/20)?

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

[Casey Russell via NANOG]

To be honest, I don't know, I'm not a money person, I just turn knobs.  But
apparently it costs more than $130 billion dollars.  In the US alone.
That's what USAC has distributed to carriers in the US in the last 20
years.  Last year was north of 8 billion.  That's just USAC and that's just
for getting high speed to rural areas, underserved communities, and
Community anchor institutions.  I don't know if that's too much or not
enough, but it seems like a lot to me as a taxpayer when I consider how
hard dozens of us had to fight to get ANY carrier to bring fiber to our
community anchor institutions 6 or so years ago.

But my point was only that if we keep arguing against change and against
pushing barriers, then we are what customers (or members) say we are.
obstinate, greedy, uncooperative, and unsupportive of their goals.  I don't
think you're any of those things, I just think we need to stop setting
limits FOR customers and be open to a conversation about how to get to
(insert wild and crazy, super cool goal here).  All the time being as
realistic as we can about how to do that.

Sincerely,
Casey Russell
Network Engineer

785-856-9809
2029 Becker Drive, Suite 282
Lawrence, Kansas 66047
XSEDE Campus Champion
Certified Software Carpentry Instructor
need support? 



On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:03 AM Jason Canady  wrote:

> On 6/6/22 10:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:
>
>
>> For a long time now...
>>
>> I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
>> bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
>> with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
>> speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
>> firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
>> I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
>> 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
>> 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.
>>
>>
> One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.)
> can be over 80Gb of data.  That's half of your Saturday just waiting to
> play a game.  That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider
> isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home.  It also assumes your
> console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to
> download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after
> Christmas or a birthday).  I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might
> not look like much in a monthly average.  But I'd argue there are plenty of
> applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average
> families" already today, not seconds.
>
> At what price, is that worth though, Casey?  Simply set the game to
> download overnight.  It's better than standing in line outside of a store!
>

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

[Mike Hammett]

If you want to argue that a bigger number is better, sure. 


However, regulatory definitions and funding has real meaning. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Casey Russell via NANOG"  
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:56:17 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 






For a long time now... 

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak 
bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit 
with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload 
speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner 
firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which 
I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 
8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 
50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications. 






One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be 
over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. 
That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't 
oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all 
the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new 
game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a 
birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much 
in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 
50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not 
seconds. 

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

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 7:46 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> "I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything
> more than we have today."

My principal argument is that we've made a huge mistake with buffering
in general, all fixed now by various RFCs and widely
available source code, and that if we focused on improving the routers
rather than digging more holes in the ground, the internet would
become vastly better, faster, and cheaper - faster.  If somehow I
could wave a wand and get everyone to reflash a junked router
to openwrt/dd-wrt/merlin/etc and configure SQM calls for moah
bandwidth would decrease. If somehow getting those RFCs mandated in
more RFPs, we'd also be making real progress.

Lower latency does not need more bandwidth it needs better bandwidth.

https://www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG_latency_explained.pdf

If further, folk would stop using oversize wifi channels and
co-ordinate spectrum, again with wifi chips that do the right thing
under contention
(example: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/fq-codel-unifi6/), it would be
a better network

Or you can burn 10s of k per mile to massively overbuild a fiber
network, that doesn't solve the real last mile problem in wifi queue
management.

>
> Few to none are doing that. Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some 
> places they're hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop 
> putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about ourselves. That's 
> too expensive.


>
> "totally fail to provide the same to everyone."
>
> Why should that be desirable?
>
>
> "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps"

gbit fiber everywhere would actually work pretty well, as very few
pieces of gear can keep up with gbit fiber:

https://forum.openwrt.org/t/so-you-have-500mbps-1gbps-fiber-and-need-a-router-read-this-first/90305

I was really astonished at how few device at a recent conference could
do a gbit in both directions at the same time. None.

> Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good 
> enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is 
> good enough.

... With good queue management. Starlink still has lousy queue
management. Got a blog post coming up A lot of fixed wireless,
notably ubnt and now mikrotik, have good queue management. Most DSL
doesn't.

>
>
>
> "If you build it they will come."
>
> So then build the hypothetical content that needs this?
>
>
> Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the US) 
> that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it would work 
> for most Americans. Once people got tired of being proven that you need such 
> forward-looking downstream capacity in the regulatory world, they just moved 
> to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services do have mildly 
> inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change the regulatory 
> environment over.

I really would, actually, at this depressing point... like regulators,
to mandate that ipv6 be deployed, and rfc7567 at every fast->slow
transition.
It would raise the bar for adaquate internet services over and above
lost cries for more bandwidth.

>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> ________________
> From: "Brandon Butterworth" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "Michael Thomas" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:31:13 AM
> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
>
> On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 08:06:50AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > "So what happens if the Next Big Thing..."
>
> I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything
> more than we have today. It's like why did we bother coming out of
> the trees, or the oceans even (yes Apple digital watches are a pretty
> neat idea).
>
> The non fibre installations we have today, while working for some,
> totally fail to provide the same to everyone. While fixing that
> globally should be a priority it should not be done in a manner
> that will require it all doing again in 10 years.
>
> Building in some headroom for growth makes sense, we're not talking
> lots it's only 10x ish to do gigabit ish, so within error margin.
>
> > I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We
> > are sufficiently close to whatever is likely to come that it
> > can come and bandwidths will have to catch up upon its launch.
>
> If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps, but until
> then we face many decades trying to get that done. So if
> something comes up we may be stuck waiting. St

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

[Jason Canady]

On 6/6/22 10:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:



For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.


One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, 
etc.) can be over 80Gb of data.  That's half of your Saturday just 
waiting to play a game.  That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit 
(your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home.  It 
also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated 
when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a 
couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not 
a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly 
average.  But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit 
equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, 
not seconds.
At what price, is that worth though, Casey?  Simply set the game to 
download overnight.  It's better than standing in line outside of a store!

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

[Casey Russell via NANOG]

>
>
> For a long time now...
>
> I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
> bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
> with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
> speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
> firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
> I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
> 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
> 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.
>
>
One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can
be over 80Gb of data.  That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a
game.  That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't
oversubscribing) to yourself in the home.  It also assumes your console
(and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download
that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas
or a birthday).  I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look
like much in a monthly average.  But I'd argue there are plenty of
applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average
families" already today, not seconds.

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

[Mike Hammett]

" I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
more than we have today." 


Few to none are doing that. Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some 
places they're hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop 
putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about ourselves. That's too 
expensive. 




"totally fail to provide the same to everyone." 


Why should that be desirable? 




"If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" 


Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. 
Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough. 






"If you build it they will come." 


So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? 




Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the US) that 
if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it would work for most 
Americans. Once people got tired of being proven that you need such 
forward-looking downstream capacity in the regulatory world, they just moved to 
upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services do have mildly inadequate 
upstream, but certainly not anything to change the regulatory environment over. 



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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Brandon Butterworth"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Michael Thomas" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:31:13 AM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 08:06:50AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> "So what happens if the Next Big Thing..." 

I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything 
more than we have today. It's like why did we bother coming out of 
the trees, or the oceans even (yes Apple digital watches are a pretty 
neat idea). 

The non fibre installations we have today, while working for some, 
totally fail to provide the same to everyone. While fixing that 
globally should be a priority it should not be done in a manner 
that will require it all doing again in 10 years. 

Building in some headroom for growth makes sense, we're not talking 
lots it's only 10x ish to do gigabit ish, so within error margin. 

> I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We 
> are sufficiently close to whatever is likely to come that it 
> can come and bandwidths will have to catch up upon its launch. 

If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps, but until 
then we face many decades trying to get that done. So if 
something comes up we may be stuck waiting. Stuff always 
comes up. 

When I started the BBC streaming we were told not to bother by 
ISPs, the quality was rubbish, the network couldn't handle it and 
never will. I did it anyway and the net grew but it was a long 
slow process with lots of screaming. It'd be nice to not have to 
wait so long next time because people want to deploy more legacy. 

> If we're not that close, then it's unrealistic to pre-build 
> capacity for imaginary developments that never come. 

If you build it they will come. People are more likely to 
invest in making things if they see a realistic timescale 
to deployment. If they also have to upgrade everyones home 
too they are less likely to bother. 

brandon 

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

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 08:06:50AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
> "So what happens if the Next Big Thing..." 

I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything
more than we have today. It's like why did we bother coming out of
the trees, or the oceans even (yes Apple digital watches are a pretty
neat idea).

The non fibre installations we have today, while working for some,
totally fail to provide the same to everyone. While fixing that
globally should be a priority it should not be done in a manner
that will require it all doing again in 10 years.

Building in some headroom for growth makes sense, we're not talking
lots it's only 10x ish to do gigabit ish, so within error margin.

> I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We
> are sufficiently close to whatever is likely to come that it
> can come and bandwidths will have to catch up upon its launch.

If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps, but until
then we face many decades trying to get that done. So if
something comes up we may be stuck waiting. Stuff always
comes up.

When I started the BBC streaming we were told not to bother by
ISPs, the quality was rubbish, the network couldn't handle it and
never will. I did it anyway and the net grew but it was a long
slow process with lots of screaming. It'd be nice to not have to
wait so long next time because people want to deploy more legacy.

> If we're not that close, then it's unrealistic to pre-build
> capacity for imaginary developments that never come. 

If you build it they will come. People are more likely to
invest in making things if they see a realistic timescale
to deployment. If they also have to upgrade everyones home
too they are less likely to bother.

brandon

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

[Joly MacFie]

But, presumably, the carriers/providers do have the data.

I've heard it suggested (Vint Cerf to broadband.money) that *any* public
funding of ISPs should be contingent on them providing it to the regulators.

joly

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:40 AM Sean Donelan  wrote:


>
> Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate
> service maps from carriers and service providers.  Its like those wireless
> maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad
> agencies know their own maps are bogus.
>
> --
--
Joly MacFie  +12185659365
--
-

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

[Mike Hammett]

"So what happens if the Next Big Thing..." 


I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We are sufficiently 
close to whatever is likely to come that it can come and bandwidths will have 
to catch up upon its launch. If we're not that close, then it's unrealistic to 
pre-build capacity for imaginary developments that never come. 




Napster came out in 1999. Broadband use in 2000 was 1%. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Michael Thomas"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:04:58 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 


On 6/1/22 1:55 PM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: 
>>> 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. 

So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's 
always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a 
lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty 
much blew that away with video conferencing, etc. 

Mike 

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

[Dave Taht]

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:47 AM Masataka Ohta
 wrote:
>
> Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt
> > it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth
> > requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to
> > think about...
>
> Required resolution of pictures is bounded by resolution of our
> eyes, which is fixed.
>
> For TVs at homes, IMHO, baseband 2k should be enough, quality of
> which may be better than highly compressed 4k.
>
> Masataka Ohta

Yep. And despite our best efforts, nobody can hear the difference
between 48khz/24 bit audio and 96khz/24 bit audio. The difference
between 16 bit and 24 bit audio can be heard... but not so much on
bluetooth earbuds! Attempts to make 10 channel audio more popular
(like Atmos) appeal to a very narrow market.

Belshe's paper on "more bandwidth doesn't matter (much) from 2008:
https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/viewer?a=v=sites=Y2hyb21pdW0ub3JnfGRldnxneDoxMzcyOWI1N2I4YzI3NzE2



-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Masataka Ohta]

Dave Taht wrote:


Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt
it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth
requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to
think about...


Required resolution of pictures is bounded by resolution of our
eyes, which is fixed.

For TVs at homes, IMHO, baseband 2k should be enough, quality of
which may be better than highly compressed 4k.

Masataka Ohta

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

[Dave Taht]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:12 AM Masataka Ohta
 wrote:
>
> Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:
>
> > That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the
> > CAGR will rise and get factored into future year projections.
>
> You should recognize that Moore's law has ended.
>
> Masataka Ohta

For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak
bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit
with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload
speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner
firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which
I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite
8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up >
50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications. Even
projected applications like VR, or adding other senses to the internet
like smell or taste, are not bandwidth intensive.

Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt
it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth
requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to
think about...

... check in with me again and wipe egg off my face in another decade.

-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Josh Luthman]

Look up the Broadband Data Act and the FCC BDC.  This will identify what
individuals have service in ~6 months.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:41 AM Sean Donelan  wrote:

> I wish (...) that public right of way agreements included a requirement
> that service providers must publish accurate service area maps, and must
> provide service (or pay a substantial penalty for each inaccurate service
> claim).
>
> In the old days (...) the "certificate of publice convenience and
> necessity" came with a duty to offer service to all in the area.  That was
> part of the consideration to use the public right of ways.
>
> Now, even when you order service and obtain a confirmation, its not really
> a confirmation.  Or ridiculous 'install fees', which are really go away
> fees.
>
> Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate
> service maps from carriers and service providers.  Its like those wireless
> maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad
> agencies know their own maps are bogus.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >   This is common sadly.  I had fiber 1200' from my house that was
> > unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible
> > to happen.  Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them
> > but can't get service.
> >
> >   Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber
> > providers that pass them and none offer service.
>

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

[Masataka Ohta]

Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:


That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the
CAGR will rise and get factored into future year projections.


You should recognize that Moore's law has ended.

Masataka Ohta

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

[Masataka Ohta]

Owen DeLong wrote:


USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas 
into connectivity wastelands.

Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by 
multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.


That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.


Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so.

You seem somehow surprised by this.


No, not at all. So?

Masataka Ohta

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

[Sean Donelan]

I wish (...) that public right of way agreements included a requirement 
that service providers must publish accurate service area maps, and must 
provide service (or pay a substantial penalty for each inaccurate service 
claim).


In the old days (...) the "certificate of publice convenience and 
necessity" came with a duty to offer service to all in the area.  That was 
part of the consideration to use the public right of ways.


Now, even when you order service and obtain a confirmation, its not really 
a confirmation.  Or ridiculous 'install fees', which are really go away 
fees.


Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate 
service maps from carriers and service providers.  Its like those wireless 
maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad 
agencies know their own maps are bogus.




On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jared Mauch wrote:

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.


This is common sadly.  I had fiber 1200' from my house that was
unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible
to happen.  Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them
but can't get service.

Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber
providers that pass them and none offer service.

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>> 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.

> So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's
always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a
lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty
much blew that away with video conferencing, etc.

That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the CAGR will 
rise and get factored into future year projections. So if the CAGR for US goes 
from 35% to 75% then when you annually update the requirement and project that 
CAGR forward, you will have higher future BB numbers that grows the US 
requirement at a faster rate. That is I think the benefit to a system that uses 
trailing demand to forecast forward with growing year-over-year BB numbers. You 
can debate whether 2-year trailing CAGR is better than 1-year, but conceptually 
the idea is that future BB numbers should be 'indexed to inflation' - so grow 
year-over-year based on past actual growth rates rather than a once-a-decade BB 
definition that is not driven by actual demand and is arguably theoretical.

Jason

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

[Michael Thomas]

On 6/1/22 1:55 PM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

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.


So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's 
always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a 
lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty 
much blew that away with video conferencing, etc.


Mike

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

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 2, 2022, at 06:41 , Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> Sean Donelan wrote:
> 
>>> USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas 
>>> into connectivity wastelands.
>> Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by 
>> multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.
> 
> That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.

Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so.

You seem somehow surprised by this. Most of us have grown quite accustomed to 
it.

Owen

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

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 1, 2022, at 20:49 , Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
> 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.

AT has fiber running through a sidewalk box in my next door neighbors yard. 
Said box has a 2” conduit directly to my MPOE in my garage.

AT refuses to give me FTTH service or even business fiber at any price.

They claim (for reasons passing understanding) that the buildout would exceed 
$100,000.

All I can say is that if they pay their fiber crews that well, I should get a 
job pulling fiber for AT

Owen

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

[Dorn Hetzel]

I live pretty deep in a rural area, and there are only about 3 or 4 houses
in the square mile I live in.  My electric service comes from a co-op, and
I'd be darn well pleased if that co-op could install and provide layer 2
service over fiber back to some local pick-up point where I could meet one
or more internet providers.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 9:44 AM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> >> USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban
> >> areas into connectivity wastelands.
> >
> > Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition
> > by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.
>
> That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.
>
> Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover
> a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional
> to their local market shares, which means only the provider with
> the largest share can survive.
>
> In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional
> to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some
> competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still
> possible.
>
> Still, providers relying on older technologies will be
> competitively replaced by other providers using newer
> technologies, which is why DSL providers have been
> disappearing and cable providers will disappear.
>
> In a long run, only fiber providers will survive.
>
> The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local
> competition even if fibers are unbundled, because,
> providers with smaller share can find smaller number
> of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually,
> fiber cost between the splitters and stations are
> same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS.
>
> But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where
> only one or two homes exist around PON splitters,
> in which case, SS is less costly.
>
> Masataka Ohta
>

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

[Masataka Ohta]

Sean Donelan wrote:

USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban 
areas into connectivity wastelands.


Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition 
by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.


That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.

Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover
a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional
to their local market shares, which means only the provider with
the largest share can survive.

In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional
to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some
competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still
possible.

Still, providers relying on older technologies will be
competitively replaced by other providers using newer
technologies, which is why DSL providers have been
disappearing and cable providers will disappear.

In a long run, only fiber providers will survive.

The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local
competition even if fibers are unbundled, because,
providers with smaller share can find smaller number
of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually,
fiber cost between the splitters and stations are
same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS.

But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where
only one or two homes exist around PON splitters,
in which case, SS is less costly.

Masataka Ohta

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

[Jared Mauch]

On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 08:49:13PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> 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.

This is common sadly.  I had fiber 1200' from my house that was
unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible
to happen.  Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them
but can't get service.

Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber
providers that pass them and none offer service.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

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  <mailto:nanog-bounces+mitch=mtanenbaum...@nanog.org> 
 On Behalf Of Matthew Huff
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Brian Turnbow  <mailto:b.turn...@twt.it> ; David Bass  
<mailto:davidbass...@gmail.com> ; Sean Donelan  
<mailto:s...@donelan.com> 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 to

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

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 <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com <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.

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

[Mike Hammett]

" 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 

- Original Message -

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

[Mike Hammett]

"The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of customers that 
subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them suddenly switched to a 1Gb 
service, would you expect an increase in overall bandwidth usage? " 


As someone offering up to gigabit, I wouldn't. They don't use what they have 
now, so why would they use more? 


I'm sure it's more than a 0 difference, but it isn't statistically relevant. 


That's, however, assuming you've spent the money to overbuild the 
infrastructure in that area to support something not needed. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Kord Martin"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:10:06 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 




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. 



When I was a rural DSL customer, my problem wasn't necessarily with the size of 
the games, but rather that you'd have to re-download the entire game every 
week. It would take almost an entire week to download a game, then by time it's 
finally updated they've updated a tree texture and you need to download the 
whole game again. I understand why this happens but customers who didn't have 
access to broadband just got the shaft. 
I still have a lot of friends who don't have access to broadband and simply 
can't play modern games because of the always-online requirement and constant, 
huge updates. 


If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense. If Fiber is 
being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for 1Gbps being more 
expensive than any lower capacity. 


The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of customers that 
subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them suddenly switched to a 1Gb 
service, would you expect an increase in overall bandwidth usage? 

I've been looking around for some other comments on bandwidth trends but I 
don't know how much of that would/should be confidential based on privacy or 
trade secret. 

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

[Mike Hammett]

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




Hence my earlier reference to the marketing machine. 





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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Brian Turnbow via NANOG"  
To: "David Bass" , "Sean Donelan"  
Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:35:09 AM 
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 < 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 
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

[Mike Hammett]

It can exceed 25 megs, but it isn't common. Certainly not common enough to 
throw hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars at the long tail. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Chris Adams"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2022 3:26:53 PM 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers 

Once upon a time, Mike Hammett  said: 
> Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, 
> but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine. 

4K TVs are cheap, and 4K streaming content is plentiful, and usually 
runs 15-20 Mbps. The average household has more than one person, and 
they may want to watch different content. 

And that's today. Gaming streaming is ramping up (which needs both good 
bandwidth and low latency), and there'll always be things you haven't 
considered popping up. 

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

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

[Jared Mauch]

> On May 31, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG  
> wrote:
> 
> All the large DOCSIS networks of which I am aware are in fact working on 
> changing their spectrum plan and physical layer to enable higher US speeds 
> and in some cases symmetric multi-gig services.


Yes, I’ve seen Comcast claim to offer 2G symmetric services in their 
applications for funding from state/local authorities to expand their networks 
to unserved or underserved areas.  I have no reason to disbelieve this claim.  
I’ve been talking to vendors about what’s going on for the next generation of 
FTTx/PON and it looks quite attractive at this point, I’m excited to see the 
latency drops and speeds go up for people once they’re off DSL or DOCSIS over 
time.

In my early days of research for my “hobby ISP” as I call it, I looked at 
getting older docsis systems as an option/alternative, and it seemed to be 
worthwhile as without a TV overlay, there were more options for speed.

The reality is today once you have the infrastructure in place, if you planned 
well you can easily upgrade with overlays.

- Jared

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

[Josh Luthman]

>Yep.  No one is forcing carriers to take USF money.  They can essentially
build whatever they want without USF money.

Unless of course USF funds are used to over build your already existing
network.  This is exactly the situation I'm in.

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:

> > I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus
> > on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available
> > if you’re willing to take it.  It might mean taking the USF money and
> > the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but
> > those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the
> > programs work and have the right integration/reporting.
>
>
> Yep.  No one is forcing carriers to take USF money.  They can
> essentially build whatever they want without USF money.
>
> However, if they do take the USF money, what should be the absolute
> minimum delivery requirements?  They can always build above the minimum.
>
> Its essentially a reverse auction.  If the government sets the
> requirements too high, the carriers claim they will walk away and the
> long-tail of broadband doesn't happen.  If the government sets the
> requirements too low, the carriers take the money and build less.
>
> The historical problem is carriers promise whatever it takes to win, take
> the money and don't deliver (or demand more money to finish).
>

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

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

All the large DOCSIS networks of which I am aware are in fact working on 
changing their spectrum plan and physical layer to enable higher US speeds and 
in some cases symmetric multi-gig services.

JL

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

[Sean Donelan]

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



Yep.  No one is forcing carriers to take USF money.  They can 
essentially build whatever they want without USF money.


However, if they do take the USF money, what should be the absolute 
minimum delivery requirements?  They can always build above the minimum.


Its essentially a reverse auction.  If the government sets the 
requirements too high, the carriers claim they will walk away and the 
long-tail of broadband doesn't happen.  If the government sets the 
requirements too low, the carriers take the money and build less.


The historical problem is carriers promise whatever it takes to win, take 
the money and don't deliver (or demand more money to finish).

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

[John Levine]

It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG  said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

The laws of physics make it rather difficult to provide symmetrical speeds on
shared media like coax or cellular radio.  As wired networks move to all fiber
they'll get more symmetrical but in the meantime I expect that Comcast, 
Spectrum,
Cox, AT, Verizon, and T-Mobile are deeply troubled by your disapproval.

R's,
John

>> On May 29, 2022, at 14:10, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
>> 
>> This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 
>> operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with
>multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no 
>intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and
>downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 
>15-20Mbps upstream per home. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, Jeff Shultz > > wrote:
>> I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we do 
>> need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50,
>100/100 etc... there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the 
>like that upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue. 
>> 
>> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass > > wrote:
>> The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 
>> 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that
>they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over 
>subscription .  
>> 
>> The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume 
>> the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a
>residential customer.  Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty 
>poor upload bandwidth limit.  
>> 
>> We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s 
>> been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload
>limit, and we start to see issues. 
>> 
>> I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. 
>> 
>> Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically 
>> increased as part of that.  We would rarely use it, but that
>would likely be sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at 
>this point though. 
>> 

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

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

Owen


> On May 29, 2022, at 14:10, Eric Kuhnke  wrote:
> 
> This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 
> operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions 
> of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever 
> changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth 
> allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, Jeff Shultz  > wrote:
> I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we do 
> need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc... there 
> are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that upstream 
> speeds are beginning to be an issue. 
> 
> On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass  > wrote:
> The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 
> 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to 
> use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .  
> 
> The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume the 
> 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer.  Even “business 
> class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.  
> 
> We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s 
> been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see 
> issues. 
> 
> I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. 
> 
> Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically 
> increased as part of that.  We would rarely use it, but that would likely be 
> sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point 
> though. 
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan  > wrote:
> 
> Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" 
> return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural and 
> tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed 
> broadband.
> 
> These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.
> 
> After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals 
> will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower total 
> cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for 
> the first 10 years of subsidies.  [massive over-simplification]
> 
> Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, 
> incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff Shultz
> 
> 
> Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!
> 
>  
>   
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for 
> the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not 
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender 
> immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete 
> this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be 
> secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, 
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender 
> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the 
> contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ***

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

[Jared Mauch]

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

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

Business I was at today says they need 40mbps 

- Jared 

Sent via RFC1925 complaint device

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

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

[Eric Kuhnke]

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





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

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

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

[Jared Mauch]

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

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

A few realities:

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

Of course speed, latency, reliability matter.

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

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

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

- Jared

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

[Richard Irving]

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

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

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

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

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

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



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

[bzs]

Maybe someone mentioned this in the current go-around but it seems we
discussed this going back to when post-dialup became available, and
before, regarding campus always-on links.

There are different underlying business models possible with different
bandwidths.

The major split is whether you meter or not.

For unmetered use there's a tendency to sell what you imagine the site
needs and if they fill it all the time ok.

For metered use you prefer to sell the site more bandwidth than they
might need on average, maybe a lot more, and they can pay if they use
a lot.

And the ever-popular hybrid models, sell a big pipe which includes
some unmetered use and only charge for overage.

And of course the ever unpopular yet common sell a big pipe with some
cap and tell them you might shape their connection on Sundays if the
moon is full and there's an 'r' in the month (kind of like ride share
pricing) tho probably no overage pricing, it just gets slow. Or maybe
overage charges also if you're a quasi-monopoly -- if we got it we'll
bill ya for using it, if not then you just won't get it.

>From a marketing point of view that pretty much sums up the
possibilities. All you can eat vs THAT'S ALL YOU CAN EAT!

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

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

[Fred Baker]

Sounds like a comment made on the FCC TAC in 1994: “there is no broadband 
market above 1 MBPS.”

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On May 28, 2022, at 1:46 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
>> enough for anybody.
> 
> somewhere around here i have saved the early '90s message (from a
> self-important person still on this list) saying africa will not need
> anything more than fidonet.
> 
> whole new classes of use emerge when enabled.  same as it ever was.
> 
> randy

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

[Randy Bush]

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

somewhere around here i have saved the early '90s message (from a
self-important person still on this list) saying africa will not need
anything more than fidonet.

whole new classes of use emerge when enabled.  same as it ever was.

randy

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

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Mike Hammett  said:
> Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, 
> but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine. 

4K TVs are cheap, and 4K streaming content is plentiful, and usually
runs 15-20 Mbps.  The average household has more than one person, and
they may want to watch different content.

And that's today.  Gaming streaming is ramping up (which needs both good
bandwidth and low latency), and there'll always be things you haven't
considered popping up.

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

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

[Mike Hammett via NANOG]

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




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

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

- Original Message -

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

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


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

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

[Dave Taht]

re: 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 7:36 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG
 wrote:
>
> > Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low 
> > bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
> > Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem
>
> +1
> IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will 
> matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, 
> if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will 
> be speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
> security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

I'd settle for the 100Mbit era having sub 25ms working latency. Which
we've been achieving in fq_codel, cake, and even pie, for 10 years.

I will file on this nprm, some variant of
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FjRo9MNnVOLh733SNPNyqaR1IFee7Q5qbMrmW1PlPr8/edit

But I keep hoping more will sign on board. Perhaps finding a lawyer to
proof it. And I'm not sure what hook to use on this nprm out of my
existing evolving document without tieing myself to a chair with a
variety of calming drugs handy.

I'm an engineer, dang it, not a politician!
>
> Jason
>
>


-- 
FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/
Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 27 May 2022, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban 
areas into connectivity wastelands.


Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by 
multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.


Those lobbyists say government subsidies shouldn't be used to compete with 
them in areas with a 'competitive market.' (unless they get those 
subsidies).


As I said, this rulemaking is for the 1.1 million locations at the 
far tail-end of the 'long tail.'


Public comments are accepted from everyone. You can submit both formal 
and informal comments on the FCC web site. Public comments don't require 
a lawyer, and under the Administrative Procedures Act, receive the same 
consideration by the FCC.

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

[Greg Shepherd]

So you haven't yet installed your home Holodeck?

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:31 PM David Bass  wrote:

> What is changing in the next 5 years that could possibly require a
> household to need a gig?  That is just ridiculous.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/23/22 12:04 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 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?
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> > Thats almost the same question we were asked at BT a dozen years ago
>> when moving from DSL -> FTTC when someone said, “but surely DSL is
>> sufficient because its so much faster than dial.”
>>
>> The two of us survive just fine with 25Mbs even when we have a house
>> full of friends. I mean it would be nice to have 100Mbs so that it's
>> never a problem but the reality is that it just hasn't been a problem in
>> practice. I mean how many 4k streams are running at the same time in the
>> average household? What else besides game downloads are sucking up that
>> much bandwidth all of the time?
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> >
>> > —Tom
>> >
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> 
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0
>> 
>>  The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek
>> comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to
>> certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more
>> locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the
>> Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of
>> achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service
>> throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving
>> A-CAM support.
>> 
>>
>

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

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> files.  (Let's not talk about 16/1.5 ADSL, going even further back, that was 
> time for a quick snooze...)

One doesn’t have to go back… In San Jose, CA, the best DSL available at my 
location is still 1.5M/384K on a good day. Add water (rain) and it drops to 
something more like 768K/128K. 

USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas 
into connectivity wastelands. 

Owen

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

[t...@pelican.org]

On Friday, 27 May, 2022 00:58, "Jeff Shultz"  said:

> I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we
> do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc...
> there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that
> upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.

Or just basic working from home.  Now all the files are "in the cloud", hitting 
'save' on a big PowerPoint deck was time to go and make a cup of tea on my 
VDSL/FTTC that synced around 55/10.  Now I'm on 300/300 fibre, it's pretty 
close to working on local files.  (Let's not talk about 16/1.5 ADSL, going even 
further back, that was time for a quick snooze...)

Cheers,
Tim.

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

[Jeff Shultz]

I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we
do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc...
there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that
upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass  wrote:

> The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even
> 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able
> to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .
>
> The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume
> the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer.  Even
> “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth
> limit.
>
> We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but
> there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we
> start to see issues.
>
> I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.
>
> Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically
> increased as part of that.  We would rarely use it, but that would likely
> be sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point
> though.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:
>
>>
>> Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst"
>> return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural and
>> tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed
>> broadband.
>>
>> These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.
>>
>> After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals
>> will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower total
>> cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for
>> the first 10 years of subsidies.  [massive over-simplification]
>>
>> Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned,
>> incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.
>>
>

-- 
Jeff Shultz

-- 
Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

   
      
      
      














_ This message 
contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual 
named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, 
distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by 
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail 
from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or 
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, 
arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does 
not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this 
message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. _

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

[babydr DBA James W. Laferriere]

Hello Jason & All ,

On Thu, 26 May 2022, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:


Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth 
(interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
Higher bandwidth won?t solve the latency problem


+1


You Mean something a little less than ...

   My traceroute  [v0.94]
replaceme (192.168.253.147) -> Snipped   
2022-05-26T13:06:34-0800
Keys:  Help   Display mode   Restart statistics   Order of fields   quit
Packets   Pings
 Host   Loss%Snt Drop   Rcv   Last  Avg  Best  Wrst 
StDev
 1. ...Snip...
 2. AS???192.168.251.1   0.0%890891.3   1.3   0.8   1.9   
0.2
 3. AS???10.5.5.227  1.1%89188  227.5 123.9  31.1 276.5  
69.8
 4. AS???10.5.5.185  2.2%89287   43.5  48.7  28.5  72.0  
10.3
 5. AS???10.5.21.241 1.1%89188   36.6  40.3  30.5  64.3   
5.7
 6. AS???10.128.88.234   2.2%89287   52.9  39.8  31.8  63.8   
5.3
 7. AS???10.128.128.125  10.1%   89980   42.5  40.0  29.6  55.7   
4.7
 8. AS???10.128.118.217  72.7%   89   6424   36.7  39.6  29.7  49.8   
4.8
 9. AS???10.128.0.16631.5%   89   2861   60.0  58.8  45.8  86.5   
8.0
10. AS???10.128.0.17085.2%   89   7513  101.1  81.7  70.7 101.1   
9.7
...snip...

Oh ,  Sorry you were talking about latncy not Packet loss .
	While I do understand that icmp responses ARE Low priority the above 
still gives some useful info .  IMO Packet losses like the above are far worse 
than latency ,  But as far as an eyeball networks users experience makes 
absolutely no difference .


IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will 
matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, 
if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be


Speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.


	One more set of nit's ,  "security/protection" by who's standard should 
this be taken from ,  Eyeball users ,  Eyeball network Operators ,  His 
upstreams ,  US Gov ,  Nato , ... ?


	Where can each of those mentioned in the above have their input listened 
too & acted apon ?




--
+-+
| James   W.   Laferriere| SystemTechniques | Give me VMS |
| Network & System Engineer  | 3237 Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| j...@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+-+

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

[Andrew Odlyzko via NANOG]

Yes, definitely.

But some of those criteria can be combined into one, namely
"transaction latency," how long it takes to get something
done.  Which includes things like uploading a video clip,
or a complicated PowerPoint deck, and (behind the scenes
from the standpoint of the end user) lots of interactions
between various computations and databases (like deciding
what ads to clutter your screen with).  So while high speed
won't solve all problems (the speed of light is rather hard
to exceed), it can help alleviate the transaction latency
annoyances by making sure those increasingly large data
transfers that are involved happen quickly.

Andrew




On Thu, 26 May 2022, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:


Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth 
(interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem


+1
IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter 
less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not 
sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + 
working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

Jason

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

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low 
> bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem

+1
IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter 
less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not 
sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + 
working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

Jason

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

[Kord Martin]

   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.

When I was a rural DSL customer, my problem wasn't necessarily with the 
size of the games, but rather that you'd have to re-download the entire 
game every week. It would take almost an entire week to download a game, 
then by time it's finally updated they've updated a tree texture and you 
need to download the whole game again. I understand why this happens but 
customers who didn't have access to broadband just got the shaft.


I still have a lot of friends who don't have access to broadband and 
simply can't play modern games because of the always-online requirement 
and constant, huge updates.


   If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense.
   If Fiber is being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for
   1Gbps being more expensive than any lower capacity.

The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of 
customers that subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them suddenly 
switched to a 1Gb service, would you expect an increase in overall 
bandwidth usage?


I've been looking around for some other comments on bandwidth trends but 
I don't know how much of that would/should be confidential based on 
privacy or trade secret.