Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brian Johnson]

> On Feb 28, 2022, at 4:44 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> That is North Dakota, not population centers.  Click the link.

> 
> You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living?  That's a poor excuse 
> for data.

I did. The numbers are related to population, not area. If you move outside of 
the major population centers, you get exponentially better service. I also 
checked several of the area codes I am very familiar with and they list 
wireless carriers over regional/local providers who provide a better and more 
robust service. Several of the details about the providers services are also 
flawed.

It looks more like a marketing site than a truth source.

> 
> >These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.
> 
> Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a 
> couple places?

I lived there and worked with nearly every regional provider in the state for 
oner a decade. I know their networks and the statewide coop that they own’s 
network. 

> 
> >but this is a problem that is more political than technical.
> 
> Strong disagreement here.  What makes you say this?

I’ve been doing SP network design for more than 20 years. If the LECs wanted to 
provide the service in these areas, they could have. They decided it was better 
to just milk the system, then prepare for the future.

> 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson  > wrote:
> I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy LECs 
> operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops which 
> device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the most 
> cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of the 
> larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build out 
> these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should 
> believe them.
> 
> I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but this 
> is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we are 
> more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear to be 
> more interested in political wins.
> 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>> 
>> According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think 
>> the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?
>> 
>> https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota 
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson > > wrote:
>> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural 
>> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH 
>> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
>> 
>> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. 
>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Ryan,
>>> 
>>> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
>>> 
>>> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural 
>>> area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a 
>>> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it 
>>> sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's 
>>> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At 
>>> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a 
>>> viable business plan to you?
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon >> > wrote:
>>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas >>> > wrote:
 
 
 
 On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> What is the embarrassment?
 That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind 
 the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra 
 Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just 
 haven't installed the NID. 
 
 Mike
 
 
 
>>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar 
>>> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>>> My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which 
>>> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  
>>> 
>>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down 
>>> the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and 
>>> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>>> 
>>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense 
>>> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from 
>>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>>> 
>>> Ryan
 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

That is North Dakota, not population centers.  Click the link.

You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living?  That's a poor
excuse for data.

>These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.

Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a
couple places?

>but this is a problem that is more political than technical.

Strong disagreement here.  What makes you say this?

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson 
wrote:

> I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy
> LECs operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops
> which device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the
> most cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of
> the larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build
> out these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should
> believe them.
>
> I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but
> this is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we
> are more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear
> to be more interested in political wins.
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I
> think the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What makes you believe it's
> nearly 100%?
>
> https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson 
> wrote:
>
>> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural
>> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH
>> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
>>
>> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate.
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ryan,
>>
>> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
>>
>> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural
>> area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a
>> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it
>> sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's
>> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At
>> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a
>> viable business plan to you?
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> What is the embarrassment?
>>>
>>> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
>>> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
>>> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't
>>> installed the NID.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar
>>> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>>>  My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which
>>> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).
>>>
>>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile
>>> down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and
>>> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>>>
>>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense
>>> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from
>>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>>

 On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

 I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see
 the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

 On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this
 has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and
 near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes
 competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one
 extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that
 government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which
 could potentially be causation.

 Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
 they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
 only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
 It's really an embarrassment.

 Mike


 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brian Johnson]

I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy LECs 
operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops which 
device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the most 
cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of the larger 
LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build out these 
population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.

I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but this 
is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we are more 
interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear to be more 
interested in political wins.


> On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think 
> the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?
> 
> https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota 
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson  > wrote:
> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural 
> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH 
> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
> 
> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>> 
>> Ryan,
>> 
>> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
>> 
>> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural 
>> area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a 
>> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it sounds 
>> like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's 
>> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At 
>> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a 
>> viable business plan to you?
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
 What is the embarrassment?
>>> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind 
>>> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada 
>>> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't 
>>> installed the NID. 
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar 
>> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>> My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 
>> 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  
>> 
>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down 
>> the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and 
>> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>> 
>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense 
>> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from 
>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>> 
>> Ryan
>>> 
 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas >>> > wrote:
 
 
 On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has 
> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near 
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition 
> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one 
> extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that 
> government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which 
> could potentially be causation.
 Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they 
 are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only 
 other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's 
 really an embarrassment. 
 
 Mike
 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman > > wrote:
>> 
>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 
>> 200 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had 
>> better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think
the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?

https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson 
wrote:

> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural
> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH
> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
>
> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate.
>
> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Ryan,
>
> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
>
> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural
> area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a
> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it
> sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's
> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At
> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a
> viable business plan to you?
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> What is the embarrassment?
>>
>> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
>> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
>> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't
>> installed the NID.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar
>> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>>  My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which
>> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).
>>
>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile
>> down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and
>> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>>
>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense
>> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from
>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see
>>> the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>>
>>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this
>>> has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and
>>> near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes
>>> competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one
>>> extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that
>>> government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which
>>> could potentially be causation.
>>>
>>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>>


 On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
 wrote:

 Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
 complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
 speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
 for years.

 >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
 the street have no option but slow DSL.

 Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


 There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
 silicon valley alone.

 I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
 what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
 was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
 consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
 now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
 but there's fiber there now.


 Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
 It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

 Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list
 at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brian Johnson]

Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural areas), 
can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH solutions. 
The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?

I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. 

> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> Ryan,
> 
> This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
> 
> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural area 
> based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a massive 
> amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it sounds like 
> your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's probably why 
> no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At $50k/mile being a 
> pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a viable business plan to 
> you?
> 
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon  > wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> What is the embarrassment?
>> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the 
>> times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada 
>> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't 
>> installed the NID. 
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar 
> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.My 
> best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 
> 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  
> 
> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down 
> the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and 
> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
> 
> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense 
> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from 
> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
> 
> Ryan
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
 I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
 generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
 
 On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has 
 a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near 
 impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition 
 pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one 
 extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that 
 government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which 
 could potentially be causation.
>>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they 
>>> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only 
>>> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's 
>>> really an embarrassment. 
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong >>> > wrote:
 
 
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> 
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had 
> better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer 
> service) for years.
> 
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across 
> >the street have no option but slow DSL.
> 
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
 
 There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
 valley alone.
 
> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's 
> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one 
> that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I 
> wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig 
> fiber there now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why 
> that matters, but there's fiber there now.
 
 Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. 
 It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population 
 of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 
 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
 
 Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
 
 I speak of 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Ryan,

This discussion was in regards to urban areas.

Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural
area based on your description.  It looks like there are absolutely a
massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it
sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's
probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there.  At
$50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a
viable business plan to you?

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon  wrote:

>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> What is the embarrassment?
>
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't
> installed the NID.
>
> Mike
>
>
> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar
> enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.
>  My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which
> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).
>
> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile
> down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and
> developer-built communities have almost zero options.
>
> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense
> connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from
> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
>> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
>> potentially be causation.
>>
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>>> for years.
>>>
>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>>
>>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
>>> silicon valley alone.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>>> but there's fiber there now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>>
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>>
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
>>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
>>> actual data.
>>>
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>>> where the developers would literally pay the 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Ryan Rawdon]

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> What is the embarrassment?
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the 
> times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada 
> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't 
> installed the NID. 
> Mike
> 
> 
I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar enough. 
 I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.My best 
option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 15/3mbit/s 
costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  

Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down the 
street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and developer-built 
communities have almost zero options.

Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense 
connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from 
Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.

Ryan
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas > > wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>> 
>>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a 
>>> lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near 
>>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition 
>>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily 
>>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is 
>>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could 
>>> potentially be causation.
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they 
>> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only 
>> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's 
>> really an embarrassment. 
>> Mike
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
 On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman >>> > wrote:
 
 Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
 complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had 
 better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer 
 service) for years.
 
 >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
 >street have no option but slow DSL.
 
 Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>> 
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
>>> valley alone.
>>> 
 I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's 
 what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that 
 was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't 
 consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there 
 now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, 
 but there's fiber there now.
>>> 
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s 
>>> literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of 
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>> 
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>> 
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m 
>>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual 
>>> data.
>>> 
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that 
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban 
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1.  USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2.  Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, 
>>> Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3.  Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently 
>>> and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in 
>>> order to boost sales prices.
>>> 
>>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of 
>>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans 
>>> underserved.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 
 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG >>> > wrote:
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tom Mitchell]

Go Mike!

Seriously, Like Owen, I'm in Evergreen and until recently, my home had very
poor speeds, but at least something.  Today, I have no option other than
Comcast which has jumped to mediocre, and AT's DSL.  Seriously. I also
get better service in the Sierra's, but alas, still only one choice.

-- Tom


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:52 PM Mike Lyon  wrote:

> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>
>
> You want a specific example?
>
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a
> few weeks ago.
>
> They live here:
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already
> have with AT
>
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>
> See what service you can order to those condos.
>
> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>
> Matt
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Martin Hannigan]

+1

On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:26 Mike Hammett  wrote:

> *nods* I agree.
>
> Usually, it's too many spineless people that won't stand up to someone
> that couldn't make friends in high school.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> --
> *From: *"Dorn Hetzel" 
> *To: *sro...@ronan-online.com
> *Cc: *"Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 19, 2022 10:16:06 AM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> Yeah, the evils of HOAs go *way* beyond shitty internet
>
> On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:15 AM  wrote:
>
>> Sounds like you’ve never lived in an HOA.
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> "A single customer who has no sway over an entire HOA"
>>
>> If you can't sway the whole HOA, then the problem must not be that bad.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Cory Sell via NANOG" 
>> *To: *"Mike Lyon" 
>> *Cc: *"NANOG" 
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>>
>> See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they
>> could easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual
>> request for said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with
>> HOA/property management. What about for a single customer? A single
>> customer who has no sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told
>> to go “pound sand” by the property manager.
>>
>> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single
>> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that
>> now, I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>>
>> Depends on many factors…
>>
>> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be
>> put in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the
>> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is
>> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>>
>> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
>>
>>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the
>> roof…
>>
>> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>>
>> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard
>> of, they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas
>> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>>
>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>>
>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>>
>> -Mike Lyon
>> Ridge Wireless
>>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* I agree. 

Usually, it's too many spineless people that won't stand up to someone that 
couldn't make friends in high school. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Dorn Hetzel"  
To: sro...@ronan-online.com 
Cc: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2022 10:16:06 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


Yeah, the evils of HOAs go *way* beyond shitty internet 


On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 11:15 AM < sro...@ronan-online.com > wrote: 



Sounds like you’ve never lived in an HOA. 




On Feb 19, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 







"A single customer who has no sway over an entire HOA" 


If you can't sway the whole HOA, then the problem must not be that bad. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 



From: "Cory Sell via NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
To: "Mike Lyon" < mike.l...@gmail.com > 
Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for said 
service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no sway 
over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by the 
property manager. 


If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single customer, 
I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, I’d be very 
curious to still see them. :) 

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.l...@gmail.com > wrote: 


Depends on many factors… 


If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put in 
delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the subscriber. 
Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is structured with 
the HOA/property management company. 


Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that. 


-Mike 



On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell < corys...@protonmail.com > wrote: 






Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof… 


What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost? 


Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas require 
people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked. 


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.l...@gmail.com > wrote: 


If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :) 


Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one! 


-Mike Lyon 
Ridge Wireless 



On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach < mpet...@netflight.com > wrote: 












On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 



I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose". 






You want a specific example? 


Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
weeks ago. 


They live here: 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
 



Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose. 


I dug and dug, and called different companies. 
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
with AT 


Go ahead. Try it for yourself. 


See what service you can order to those condos. 


Heart of Silicon Valley. 


Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :( 


Matt 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[sronan]

Sounds like you’ve never lived in an HOA.

> On Feb 19, 2022, at 11:09 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> 
> "A single customer who has no sway over an entire HOA"
> 
> If you can't sway the whole HOA, then the problem must not be that bad.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> 
> The Brothers WISP
> 
> From: "Cory Sell via NANOG" 
> To: "Mike Lyon" 
> Cc: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
> easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for 
> said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
> management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no 
> sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by 
> the property manager.
> 
> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single 
> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, 
> I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> Depends on many factors…
> 
> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
> structured with the HOA/property management company.
> 
> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
> 
> -Mike 
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
> 
>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
> 
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
> 
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
> 
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
> 
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
> 
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
>> wrote:
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> 
> You want a specific example?
> 
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
> weeks ago.
> 
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
> 
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
> 
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
> with AT
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
> 
> See what service you can order to those condos.
> 
> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
> 
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

"A single customer who has no sway over an entire HOA" 


If you can't sway the whole HOA, then the problem must not be that bad. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Cory Sell via NANOG"  
To: "Mike Lyon"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 7:16:37 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for said 
service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no sway 
over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by the 
property manager. 


If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single customer, 
I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, I’d be very 
curious to still see them. :) 

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.l...@gmail.com > wrote: 


Depends on many factors… 


If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put in 
delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the subscriber. 
Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is structured with 
the HOA/property management company. 


Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that. 


-Mike 



On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote: 






Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof… 


What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost? 


Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas require 
people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked. 


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon < mike.l...@gmail.com > wrote: 


If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :) 


Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one! 


-Mike Lyon 
Ridge Wireless 



On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote: 












On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman < j...@imaginenetworksllc.com > 
wrote: 



I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose". 






You want a specific example? 


Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
weeks ago. 


They live here: 
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
 



Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose. 


I dug and dug, and called different companies. 
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
with AT 


Go ahead. Try it for yourself. 


See what service you can order to those condos. 


Heart of Silicon Valley. 


Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :( 


Matt 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Start with a neighborhood.  A block.  something.  I'm sure there's a reason
behind why something is the way it is.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> 
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
>
> There are many such parts of San Jose. How specific do you want? Most of
> the residential areas served by the Evergreen central office specific
> enough for you?
>
> My house specific enough for you? (No, I won’t be posting my address to
> NANOG).
>
> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.
>
>
> My complaint here is that the ILECs are incentivized by USF$$ to put their
> resources into rural, ignoring mezzo-urban and sub-urban customers. So I
> don’t think your CLEC rant has much to do with that.
>
> This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of
> operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that
> claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain
> correlation which could potentially be causation.
>
>
> I won’t deny that it could be a factor in the overall lack of competition
> and I agree that process is long overdue for a tuneup. However, it’s not
> the root cause of the repatriation of customer dollars from mezzo-urban and
> sub-urban areas into rural infrastructure investment to the exclusion of
> investment in those areas.
>
> Frankly, the simple solution to that problem would be to require that any
> [IC]LEC receiving USF dollars provide a level of service to their USF donor
> customers that is at least on par with the service they provide to their
> USF beneficiary customers.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>> for years.
>>
>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>
>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>
>>
>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
>> valley alone.
>>
>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>> but there's fiber there now.
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
>> data.
>>
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>> dwellings.
>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>> order to boost sales prices.
>>
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>> underserved.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Aaron Porter]

Same issues in NYC. I'm in the bay area burbs and at least once a month get
marketing from AT or Sonic about FTTH that stops 2 doors away. The bonded
DSL alternative is... Functional but a couple times more expensive than my
neighbors pay.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/11/verizon-wiring-up-500k-homes-with-fios-to-settle-years-long-fight-with-nyc/

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, 10:38 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> *nods*
>
> If there's not a fiscal reason to not do it (which USF and other
> give-aways solve), then there's a political reason. Gotta solve that one on
> a case-by-case basis.
>
>
>
> -
> 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: *Wednesday, February 16, 2022 12:13:52 PM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural
> America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm
> that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad
> band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her
> porn is important enough to subsidize.
>
> If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a
> population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make
> from a financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local
> red tape, fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers
> agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large
> providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.
>
> Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit
> fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT
> Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they
> don't get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the
> developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure
> costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every
> subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by
> altering the language in their agreements.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> >> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for
> >> 200 meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually
> >> had better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible
> >> customer service) for years.
> >>
> >> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
> >> across the street have no option but slow DSL.
> >>
> >> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
> >
> > There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
> > silicon valley alone.
> >
> >> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where
> >> it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The
> >> only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the
> >> map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again,
> >> there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he actually got his
> >> CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.
> >
> > Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
> > It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a
> > population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population
> > density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at
> > 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
> >
> > Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list
> > at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
> >
> > I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
> > I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t
> > have actual data.
> >
> > The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
> > utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the
> > mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
> > 1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
> > 2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
> > areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
> > dwellings.
> > 3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mo

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Patrick Clochesy]

California in particular also has more stringent rules for commercial
buildings with seismic requirements. While a nonpen mount is great, you
still have to get the service into the building somehow.

Back in 2005 when I moved to this area, I worked directly across the street
from what is now the stadium - at that time it was Great America's parkling
lot. The area still shows dead on the CA broadband map, but all we could
get was AT DSL or your typical telco circuits. This is despite being in a
very urban area in the heart of Silicon Valley, JUST up the road from the
datacenter we used at the time (Globix). We ended up having to do a
wireless P2P to the McAfee building up the road, and getting the cable from
the roof in I'm pretty sure required the contractor to x-ray the roof after
they were done which I believe was pre-stressed concrete panels.

To this day, many of those dead zones still exist. I've been to many RURAL
areas with far more consistent Internet access than Silicon Valley, and it
certainly does seem odd.

-Patrick

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:04 PM Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:

> Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard
> of, they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>
>
> You want a specific example?
>
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a
> few weeks ago.
>
> They live here:
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already
> have with AT
>
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>
> See what service you can order to those condos.
>
> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

I have to give a shout out here for Mike’s organization (Ridge Wireless).

They do provide excellent customer service and decent speeds, though they are 
sub-fiber and at somewhat of a premium/Mbps vs. terrestrial fiber solutions.

I’m currently using Ridge as my primary connectivity with Comcast as a backup. 
They have consistently over-delivered vs. promised data rates and have always 
answered any issues I bring up promptly and with great skill and knowledge.

They are a total contract from the large utility players and I cannot recommend 
them highly enough.


Owen


> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02 , Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
> 
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
> 
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  > wrote:
>> 
>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>> 
>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>> 
>> -Mike Lyon
>> Ridge Wireless
>> 
>>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman >> > wrote:
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You want a specific example?
>>> 
>>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>>> weeks ago.
>>> 
>>> They live here:
>>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>> 
>>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>>> have with AT
>>> 
>>> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>>> 
>>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>> 
>>> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
>>> 
>>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Dave Taht]

The future belongs to wireless. Hopefully not 5g to any huge extent.

If it helps any, wiline in the bay area has been delivering fixed
wireless services for many, many years, 'round here. There's another
technology - free space optics - that can get stuff across the street.
I played around a lot with early versions of this:

http://www.koruza.net/

Then I assume spacex will also market their 10-20Gbit laser links on
earth at some point. In atmosphere, I cannot hazard a guess, but more
than 1km seems feasible, even in fog.

There is a ton of good wireless gear out, or coming out, if you can
find someone to point it at. The ubiquiti 60ghz AP's base latency is
0.7ms from AP to customer. Ideal max range is about 1.5km to account
for rain fade. Bandwidth is 1Gbps per AP, so 300-500Mbps symmetrical
plans are possible depending on the oversubscription ratio and how
many subs per AP.
60GHz PtMP can do 950/950Mbps on the first bandwidth test, with <1ms
(idle, have not tested for bufferbloat, too scared to) latency.
There's up to 15 subscribers per AP. The APs have 30 degree beamwidth,
so up to 180 subs per tower site would be possible. The main catch is
cost and range. $400 per customer radio (3X cost of most CPEs).

802.11AX 5GHz PtMP products from Mimosa and Cambium will be
interesting competing products at 1/2 that cost per CPE.  Seeing
870Mbps and 4ms latency at 9km with AX gear. I worry a lot more about
bufferbloat on AX than I do on the above product, but have tested none
of it.
Mimosa's APs are due out soon. Cambium's AX products will be split
between 5GHz and 6GHz versions, and expected Q4 this year.

Last, though I've not played with 'em yet... I'm told tarana is
delivering some crazy performance, definately the best I've ever heard
of.

Price is 13,000 per AP, $600 per CPE, and a few dollars per month per
CPE, which is why many are waiting for AX.

The future belongs to wireless.




On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:19 PM Cory Sell via NANOG  wrote:
>
> See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
> easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for 
> said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
> management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no 
> sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by 
> the property manager.
>
> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single 
> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, 
> I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> Depends on many factors…
>
> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>
> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
>
>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>
> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
>
>
> You want a specific example?
>
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
> weeks ago.
>
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
> with AT
>
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>
> See what service you can order to those condos.
>
> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

Well, if the HOA allowed us to install an antenna for the single customer, then 
our standard rates would apply (google Ridge Wireless, if you want to see 
pricing, i don’t want my NANOG messages to seem spammy). 

Another problem with condos that were built before the 2000’s is inside wiring. 
Likely going to be wired with something like Cat3 and old RG59 coax. 

I’m not saying i don’t agree with the sentiment of this thread. Silicon Valley 
does have many under-served areas that ATT and Comcast haven’t, or won’t, 
build-out decent service. 

-Mike



> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:16, Cory Sell  wrote:
> 
>  See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
> easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for 
> said service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
> management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no 
> sway over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by 
> the property manager.
> 
> If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single 
> customer, I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, 
> I’d be very curious to still see them. :)
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>> Depends on many factors…
>> 
>> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
>> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
>> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
>> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>> 
>> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>> 
>> -Mike 
>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
 
>>>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>>> 
>>> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>>> 
>>> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
>>> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
>>> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
 If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
 
 Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
 
 -Mike Lyon
 Ridge Wireless
 
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
>>  wrote:
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see 
>> the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> 
> You want a specific example?
> 
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a 
> few weeks ago.
> 
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
> 
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
> 
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
> have with AT
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
> 
> See what service you can order to those condos.
> 
> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
> 
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

See this is my point. People always dismiss these issues and say they could 
easily get service. Then, when someone comes in with an actual request for said 
service, the answer we get is about structured deals with HOA/property 
management. What about for a single customer? A single customer who has no sway 
over an entire HOA, a single customer who is told to go “pound sand” by the 
property manager.

If you can’t give a single figure or even rough numbers for a single customer, 
I’d say avoid dismissing the problem. If you can provide that now, I’d be very 
curious to still see them. :)

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:10 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:

> Depends on many factors…
>
> If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put 
> in delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the 
> subscriber. Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is 
> structured with the HOA/property management company.
>
> Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.
>
> -Mike
>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
>
>>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
>>
>> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
>>
>> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
>> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
>> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>>
>>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>>>
>>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>>>
>>> -Mike Lyon
>>> Ridge Wireless
>>>
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>>>
 

 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
 wrote:

> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

 You want a specific example?

 Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a 
 few weeks ago.

 They live here:
 https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295

 Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

 I dug and dug, and called different companies.
 The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
 have with AT

 Go ahead. Try it for yourself.

 See what service you can order to those condos.

 Heart of Silicon Valley.

 Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :(

 Matt

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Ray Van Dolson via NANOG]

Infrapedia says there is Zayo fiber across the street to the south.  Guessing a 
DIA circuit might be a budget buster though.

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Matthew 
Petach
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 4:47 PM
To: Josh Luthman 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".


You want a specific example?

Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
weeks ago.

They live here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
 
[google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian*Woods*Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295__;Kys!!CKZwjTOV!llQHn5Wntp0_F3zzX89g1iOQpOOv5Va6UhiCx6RhcrTI8IKAVUU7uKOzZ0Mi_Q$>

Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

I dug and dug, and called different companies.
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
with AT

Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.

See what service you can order to those condos.

Heart of Silicon Valley.

Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(

Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

Depends on many factors…

If the whole HOA wanted service, then a licensed link could possibly be put in 
delivering a high capacity circuit delivering about 100 Mbps to the subscriber. 
Price to the customer would vary depending on how the deal is structured with 
the HOA/property management company.

Could also look into getting some fiber delivered and feed it from that.

-Mike 

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 17:02, Cory Sell  wrote:
> 
>  Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…
> 
> What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?
> 
> Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
> they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas 
> require people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:
>> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>> 
>> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>> 
>> -Mike Lyon
>> Ridge Wireless
>> 
 On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
 wrote:
 I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
 generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>> 
>>> 
>>> You want a specific example?
>>> 
>>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>>> weeks ago.
>>> 
>>> They live here:
>>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>> 
>>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>> 
>>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>>> have with AT
>>> 
>>> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
>>> 
>>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>> 
>>> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
>>> 
>>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

Out of pure curiosity, let’s assume they COULD put an antenna on the roof…

What is the service? Bandwidth, latency expectation, cost?

Note that in almost every condominium or apartment complex I have heard of, 
they do NOT allow roof builds. This is why satellite TV in those areas require 
people to put an antenna on their patio, even if it’s half-blocked.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 6:51 PM, Mike Lyon  wrote:

> If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)
>
> Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!
>
> -Mike Lyon
> Ridge Wireless
>
>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> You want a specific example?
>>
>> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
>> weeks ago.
>>
>> They live here:
>> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
>>
>> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
>>
>> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
>> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already 
>> have with AT
>>
>> Go ahead. Try it for yourself.
>>
>> See what service you can order to those condos.
>>
>> Heart of Silicon Valley.
>>
>> Worse connectivity than many rural areas. :(
>>
>> Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon]

If they allow antennas on the roof, we can service them :)

Your house, on the other hand, we already lucked out on that one!

-Mike Lyon
Ridge Wireless

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 16:48, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
> 
> 
> You want a specific example?
> 
> Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few 
> weeks ago.
> 
> They live here:
> https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295
> 
> Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.
> 
> I dug and dug, and called different companies.
> The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already have 
> with AT
> 
> Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.
> 
> See what service you can order to those condos.
> 
> Heart of Silicon Valley.  
> 
> Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(
> 
> Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:16 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>


You want a specific example?

Friend of mine asked me to help them get better Internet connectivity a few
weeks ago.

They live here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Meridian+Woods+Condos/@37.3200394,-121.9792261,17.47z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x808fca909a8f5605:0x399cdd468d99300c!8m2!3d37.3190694!4d-121.9818295

Just off of I-280 in the heart of San Jose.

I dug and dug, and called different companies.
The only service they can get there is the 768K DSL service they already
have with AT

Go ahead.  Try it for yourself.

See what service you can order to those condos.

Heart of Silicon Valley.

Worse connectivity than many rural areas.   :(

Matt

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> 
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the 
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

There are many such parts of San Jose. How specific do you want? Most of the 
residential areas served by the Evergreen central office specific enough for 
you?

My house specific enough for you? (No, I won’t be posting my address to NANOG). 

> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a 
> lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near 
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status. 

My complaint here is that the ILECs are incentivized by USF$$ to put their 
resources into rural, ignoring mezzo-urban and sub-urban customers. So I don’t 
think your CLEC rant has much to do with that. 

> This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of 
> operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that 
> claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain 
> correlation which could potentially be causation.

I won’t deny that it could be a factor in the overall lack of competition and I 
agree that process is long overdue for a tuneup. However, it’s not the root 
cause of the repatriation of customer dollars from mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
areas into rural infrastructure investment to the exclusion of investment in 
those areas. 

Frankly, the simple solution to that problem would be to require that any 
[IC]LEC receiving USF dollars provide a level of service to their USF donor 
customers that is at least on par with the service they provide to their USF 
beneficiary customers. 

Owen

> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> 
>> 
 On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman  
 wrote:
 
 Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
 complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had 
 better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer 
 service) for years.
 
 >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
 >street have no option but slow DSL.
 
 Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>> 
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
>>> valley alone.
>>> 
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
>>> most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was 
>>> close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider 
>>> that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I 
>>> don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but 
>>> there's fiber there now.
>> 
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s 
>> literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of 
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>> 
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>> 
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m 
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual 
>> data.
>> 
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities 
>> tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
>> parts of America…
>>  1.  USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>  2.  Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, 
>> Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
>> dwellings.
>>  3.  Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently 
>> and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in 
>> order to boost sales prices.
>> 
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of 
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans 
>> underserved.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG  
 wrote:
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even 
 a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows 
 how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G 
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  
 Houses could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park 
 across the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is 
 prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.
 
 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  
 Of course, this is 

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tony Wicks]

It is really quite odd that arguably the heart of high tech in the world has 
such poor coverage. I remember going on a visit there 10+ years ago and being 
shocked that the head of the development team at the company I was visiting had 
the best available which was a 2meg cable plan with a data cap while here in 
New Zealand we had adsl/vdsl to the curb unlimited for about $60USD. Then about 
2 years ago we moved to 1G/500 GPON unlimited for a retail price of about 
$60USD. For the last year at home I’ve had unlimited 4Gb/s symmetric XGSPON for 
a retail price of around $105USD/month. This Fibre coverage covers something 
like 70% of the country and is rapidly rising. I would have thought Silicon 
Valley would be years ahead of a small country in the south pacific (we have to 
pay for all that sub sea connectivity to the USA and Australia as well, I have 
routers in San Jose and LA connected to Auckland). Something has gone horribly 
wrong to produce this outcome I would suggest.

 

 

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Michael 
Thomas
Sent: Thursday, 17 February 2022 10:47 am
To: Josh Luthman 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

 

 

On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

What is the embarrassment?

That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the 
times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada before 
Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't installed the 
NID. 

Mike

 

 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

Crap, slow internet options in the heart of Silicon Valley, I think..

https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov

You can look around the billion dollar football stadium and international
airport and see neighborhoods with 1-3Mbps only.


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:38 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> What is the embarrassment?
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
>> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
>> potentially be causation.
>>
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>>> for years.
>>>
>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>>
>>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
>>> silicon valley alone.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>>> but there's fiber there now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>>
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>>
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
>>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
>>> actual data.
>>>
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>>> order to boost sales prices.
>>>
>>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>>> underserved.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
 even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
 knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
 could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
 the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
 high to get fiber, etc.

 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
 too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
 services are continually being added and upgraded.
 *Brandon Svec*



 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher 
> wrote:
>
>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>
>> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

But the location has an internet service.  Is it embarrassing because it
should have fiber or "better connectivity" because of its location?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> What is the embarrassment?
>
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind
> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada
> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't
> installed the NID.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
>> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>>
>> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
>> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
>> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
>> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
>> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
>> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
>> potentially be causation.
>>
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but
>> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The
>> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP.
>> It's really an embarrassment.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>>> for years.
>>>
>>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>>
>>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>>
>>>
>>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
>>> silicon valley alone.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>>> but there's fiber there now.
>>>
>>>
>>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>>
>>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>>
>>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information.
>>> I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have
>>> actual data.
>>>
>>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>>> dwellings.
>>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>>> order to boost sales prices.
>>>
>>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>>> underserved.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
 even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
 knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
 fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
 could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
 the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
 high to get fiber, etc.

 There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
 too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
 services are continually being added and upgraded.
 *Brandon Svec*



 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Michael Thomas]

On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

What is the embarrassment?


That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind 
the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra 
Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just 
haven't installed the NID.


Mike




On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:


On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to
see the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain
this has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily
complicated and near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC
status.  This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes
the costs of operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously
not going to be one that claims that government is good or bad,
just pointing out a certain correlation which could potentially
be causation.


Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas,
but they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've
ever heard. The only other real alternative is things like
Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's really an embarrassment.

Mike



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:




On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
 wrote:

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is
someone complaining about the coax connection is "only 100
meg when I pay for 200 meg". Comcast was the most hated
company and yet they factually had better speeds (possibly
in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for
years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the
houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such
examples in silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data,
where it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor
speeds.  The only one that was close was Jared and I'm
pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider that in
town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why
that matters, but there's fiber there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not
in town”. It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the
US with a population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010
census) and a population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile
(compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the
same list at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and
8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most
information. I’m sure this situation exists in other states
as well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives
that utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for
the mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense
arrays, Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment
complexes, or single family dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very
recently and where the developers would literally pay the
utilities to pre-deploy in order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual
deployment of broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities
of average Americans underserved.

Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG
 wrote:

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on
this list with even a passing knowledge of the broadband
landscape in the United States knows how hit or miss it
can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
and the houses across the street have no option but slow
DSL.  Houses could have reliable high speed cable
internet, but the office park across the field has no
such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices
of provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing
by the minute as new services are continually being
added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

What is the embarrassment?

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:

>
> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".
>
> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has
> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
> high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
> potentially be causation.
>
> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they
> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only
> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's
> really an embarrassment.
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
>> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
>> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
>> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
>> for years.
>>
>> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>>
>> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>>
>>
>> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
>> valley alone.
>>
>> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
>> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
>> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
>> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
>> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
>> but there's fiber there now.
>>
>>
>> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
>> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
>> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
>> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>>
>> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
>> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>>
>> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
>> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
>> data.
>>
>> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
>> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
>> and sub-urban parts of America…
>> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
>> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
>> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
>> dwellings.
>> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
>> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
>> order to boost sales prices.
>>
>> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
>> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
>> underserved.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider
>>> too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new
>>> services are continually being added and upgraded.
>>> *Brandon Svec*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

 On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Can you provide examples?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Michael Thomas]

On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see 
the generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".


On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this 
has a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated 
and near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes 
competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating 
one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that 
claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain 
correlation which could potentially be causation.


Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but 
they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. 
The only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a 
WISP. It's really an embarrassment.


Mike



On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:




On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman
 wrote:

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is
someone complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg
when I pay for 200 meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and
yet they factually had better speeds (possibly in part to their
subjectively terrible customer service) for years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in
silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where
it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The
only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw
the map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but
again, there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he
actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber
there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in
town”. It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with
a population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a
population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4
Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same
list at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most
information. I’m sure this situation exists in other states as
well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the
mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not
areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single
family dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently
and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to
pre-deploy in order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment
of broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average
Americans underserved.

Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG
 wrote:

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this
list with even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape
in the United States knows how hit or miss it can be.  An
apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could
have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park
across the field has no such choice because the buildout cost
is prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of
provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the
minute as new services are continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:

OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher
 wrote:

Can you provide examples?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG


Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living
just outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he had to start his
own CLEC.

I have friends in significantly more rural areas than
he lives in ( Niagara and Orleans county NYS ,
between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the
generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose".

On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a
lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near
impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition
pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily
high.  I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is
good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could
potentially be causation.

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
> for years.
>
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
> street have no option but slow DSL.
>
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>
>
> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
> valley alone.
>
> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
> but there's fiber there now.
>
>
> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”.
> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
>
> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
>
> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m
> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual
> data.
>
> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that
> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban
> and sub-urban parts of America…
> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not areas
> of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family dwellings.
> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and
> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
> order to boost sales prices.
>
> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of
> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans
> underserved.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>
>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
>> Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
>> continually being added and upgraded.
>> *Brandon Svec*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>>
 Can you provide examples?
>

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG

 Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
 Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

 I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
 Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
 have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
 Niagara Falls.

 This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
 is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
 example as you asked for.

 On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 16, 2022, at 10:13 , Aaron Wendel  wrote:
> 
> The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural America, 
> a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm that's 10 miles 
> from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad band is a basic 
> service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her porn is important 
> enough to subsidize.

I’m not opposed to subsidizing Grandma’s porn in rural America… I’m opposed to 
doing it to the exclusion of getting equivalent service in mezzo-urban and 
sub-urban America.

> If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a 
> population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make from a 
> financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local red tape, 
> fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers agreeing not to 
> overbuild each other and incentives given by said large providers to 
> developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.

If they’re actually making such agreements, wouldn’t that violate the Sherman 
anti-trust act? (Yes, I know that proving it is a whole other matter).

In actual fact, the reality is a bit more sinister… Providers realize that they 
can milk the USF cow for many more $/cost than they would get deploying those 
same resources to build out mezzo-urban and sub-urban areas, even though the 
business case can be made.

As such, USF does, actually, actively detract from those build-outs… So for 
years, I’ve been subsidizing Grandma’s porn habit while I can’t get even half 
the level of service she does, even though in an actual market economy, it 
would make far more sense to build here.

> Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit 
> fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT  
> Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they don't 
> get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the developers to 
> keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure costs and/or paying 
> the developments and complexes a kickback for every subscriber. Now the FCC 
> says you can't do that but they get around it by altering the language in 
> their agreements.

Yeah, I’m sure there’s no shortage of shady utility deals around, to preserve 
their monopolies as well.

I think a lot of this could get solved if we started limiting or even 
prohibiting vertical integration (prohibit players in layers 0-2 from playing 
in layers 3-7 and vice versa). Arguing over where that dividing line should be, 
exactly (my vote is actually between L1 and L2) is a detail to hash out once we 
get general consensus that vertical integration is harmful.

Up to L1, you have “natural monopolies”… It’s often difficult to cost-justify 
the infrastructure unless you have more than 50% of homes passed as customers. 
Obviously, it’s impossible for more than one provider to achieve that, hence 
natural monopoly. Even in the best cases, you end up with natural oligopolies 
(a very small number of competitors and a distorted market as a result).

I’m a big fan of having civil society own the base infrastructure operated 
either by the local government directly or by awarding an operations contract 
to an independent contractor. Make that infrastructure link end-sites to 
serving centers which have essentially super-sized meet me rooms and colocation 
facilities which are available to all service providers on an equal basis 
(nobody gets sweetheart deals, everyone pays the same unit price for what they 
get) has the following effects:

+   Lowers the barrier to competition for services
+   Puts the monopoly in position of being a B2B service only which 
increases their accountability
(a small number of business customers wield a much 
greater power against said monopoly
than a large group of consumers most of whom lack 
detailed technical knowledge)

Obviously, the existing entrenched interests are thoroughly opposed to any such 
design because it strips them of their power. However, if we can start 
executing this model, I think it would have roughly the same effect on the 
current monopolies as Lyft,Uber, et. al. have had on the Taxi industry.

While the cab medallion holders hated it, I’m pretty sure virtually everyone 
else has been celebrating the results.

Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Aaron Wendel]

The reason government incentives exist is because, in a lot of rural 
America, a business case can't be made to connect to Grandma's farm 
that's 10 miles from the nearest splice box.  If you believe that broad 
band is a basic service now, like electricity, then getting Grandma her 
porn is important enough to subsidize.


If I want to run fiber to every home in the 11th larges city with a 
population density of 5,642 people/sq mi, that's an easy case to make 
from a financial perspective.  The issues that come into play are local 
red tape, fees, restrictions, etc.  Compound that with large providers 
agreeing not to overbuild each other and incentives given by said large 
providers to developers and, sometimes, its just not worth it.


Here's an example for you.  North Kansas City, Missouri has FREE gigabit 
fiber to every home in town.  It also has Spectrum (Charter) and AT  
Recently there has been a boom of apartment complexes going up but they 
don't get the free stuff. Why?  Because Spectrum and Charter pay the 
developers to keep the free stuff by assuming internal infrastructure 
costs and/or paying the developments and complexes a kickback for every 
subscriber. Now the FCC says you can't do that but they get around it by 
altering the language in their agreements.


Aaron


On 2/16/2022 11:52 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:



On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman 
 wrote:


Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 
200 meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually 
had better speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible 
customer service) for years.


>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses 
across the street have no option but slow DSL.


Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?


There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in 
silicon valley alone.


I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where 
it's what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The 
only one that was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the 
map I wouldn't consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, 
there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember if he actually got his 
CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.


Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. 
It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a 
population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population 
density of 5,642 people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 
3,632/Sq. Mi.).


Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list 
at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.


I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. 
I’m sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t 
have actual data.


The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that 
utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the 
mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…

1.USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not 
areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
dwellings.
3.Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and 
where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy 
in order to boost sales prices.


Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of 
broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans 
underserved.


Owen





On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
 wrote:


What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list
with even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the
United States knows how hit or miss it can be.  An
apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses
across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have
reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is
prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of
provider too.  Of course, this is literally changing by the
minute as new services are continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:

OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher
 wrote:

Can you provide examples?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG


Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just
outside Ann Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

I have 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone 
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better 
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for 
> years.
> 
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
> >street have no option but slow DSL.
> 
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon 
valley alone.

> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
> most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was 
> close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider 
> that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I 
> don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's 
> fiber there now.

Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s 
literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of 
1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 
people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 
3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m sure 
this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities 
tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban 
parts of America…
1.  USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2.  Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, 
Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family 
dwellings.
3.  Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently 
and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in 
order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of broadband 
improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans underserved.

Owen



> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG  > wrote:
> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even a 
> passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows how 
> hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and 
> the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have 
> reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the field has 
> no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to get fiber, 
> etc.
> 
> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  Of 
> course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are 
> continually being added and upgraded.
> Brandon Svec 
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  > wrote:
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG 
> 
> 
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
> MI, so he had to start his own CLEC. 
> 
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara 
> and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the 
> same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara 
> Falls. 
> 
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
> long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as 
> you asked for. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
> >> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
> >> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> > 
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
> > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the 
> > back of the 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Parts of San Jose are another example… The so-called “Capital of Silicon 
Valley” has many neighborhoods where
fiber is less than 100 yards away and yet fiber services are unavailable. In 
many of those locations, DSL is limited
to about 1.5M/384k (and that on good days).

This is true of many other bay area cities and several other mezzo-urban and 
sub-urban areas in California.

Owen


> On Feb 11, 2022, at 05:41 , Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG 
> 
> 
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
> MI, so he had to start his own CLEC. 
> 
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara 
> and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the 
> same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara 
> Falls. 
> 
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
> long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as 
> you asked for. 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Can you provide examples?
> 
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > 
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
> >> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
> >> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> > 
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
> > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the 
> > back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> > 
> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
> > "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in 
> > rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
> > 
> > Mark.
> 
> ROFLMAO…
> 
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know 
> at least have GPON or better.
> 
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
> be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
> 
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
> treatment no matter what we do.
> 
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Owen
> 

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Travis Garrison]

In my location, I can get 1.5M from CenturyLink. That is the only hardwired 
option. Typical speeds was around 700K. I spent the money and installed my own 
180ft tower and a microwave connection to a bigger town that I could get a 
fiber circuit at. Now we have linked up several other smaller towns through 
wireless links and providing a better service than what is there.

Travis

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Josh 
Luthman
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Brandon Svec 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone complaining 
about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 meg".  Comcast 
was the most hated company and yet they factually had better speeds (possibly 
in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the 
>street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what 
most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was close 
was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider that in 
town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I don't remember 
if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's fiber there now.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even a 
passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows how hit 
or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the 
houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could have 
reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the field has no 
such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.  Of 
course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are 
continually being added and upgraded.
Brandon Svec


On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
Can you provide examples?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG

Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor, 
MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara and 
Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the same 
400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara Falls.

This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a 
long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as you 
asked for.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman 
mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off 
>from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Can you provide examples?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:


> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka 
> mailto:mark@tinka.africa>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>
> If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband connections" 
> actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the back of the 
> "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>
> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
> "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in rural 
> America still have no or poor Internet access.
>
> Mark.

ROFLMAO…

People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know at 
least have GPON or better.

Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.

Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
treatment no matter what we do.

There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off 
from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Nathan Angelacos]

20 miles from Sacramento.

Mother-in-law has an ATT  DSLAM *at the end of her driveway*  on
the other side of the street.  ATT swears she can get internet. Until
she tries to sign up, and "oh no... wrong side of the street"

She is at 700Kbps over a WISP ... *after* she trimmed the trees to get
line of sight.

sigh.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

The house was completed a year or two before my mother's purchase and it 
took Comcast another year or two to lay cable. Imagine buying a house 
and waiting three to four years for internet service. That does not 
qualify as "got service right away" in my mind. The frustrating part, 
for me as a bystander, was that the 10-20 year old homes in the same 
neighborhood had great service from several providers, while this group 
of 4-5 homes had only one option. Certainly opened my eyes to the fact 
that there are internet deserts in the middle of the suburbs.


Before purchasing my current home, I double checked visually that there 
were at least two internet providers in the ground and at least one of 
them was fiber before signing a contract. Turned out both were fiber 
while a coax provider was promised and did eventually deliver. I'm happy 
with my current service and its price; I attribute some of that to the 
competition in the area.


--Blake



On 2/11/2022 3:42 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
I believe what he said was "Comcast did eventually lay cable".  That 
was in a brand new development.  It's a brand new house and got 
service right away.  What more do you want from providers?


Out in the country, yes, there are the 10k to 100k build out costs all 
the time.  But that's the country (rural).


On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:37 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
 wrote:


Excellent example.  I see this all.the.time. She could
probably get Comcast just fine by paying $50k buildout or signing
a 10 year agreement for TV/Phone/Internet and convincing 5
neighbors too ;)
*Brandon *



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:32 PM Blake Hudson  wrote:

My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The realtor indicated that ATT,
Comcast, and
Google Fiber all provided service to the neighborhood and the HOA
confirmed. Unfortunately for her, Google fiber laid fiber ~3
years
before and her cul-de-sac was developed ~2 years before she
moved in. No
Google Fiber, no Comcast, just ATT. Both Comcast and Google
Fiber were
within 100 ft of her property and wouldn't serve her. Google
has no
plans to serve that cul-de-sac in the future. Comcast did
eventually lay
cable. I'm sure her and her neighbors aren't the only people
in America
to experience something similar.

On 2/11/2022 3:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the
houses across
> the street have no option but slow DSL.
>
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

I believe what he said was "Comcast did eventually lay cable".  That was in
a brand new development.  It's a brand new house and got service right
away.  What more do you want from providers?

Out in the country, yes, there are the 10k to 100k build out costs all the
time.  But that's the country (rural).

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:37 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
wrote:

> Excellent example.  I see this all.the.time. She could probably get
> Comcast just fine by paying $50k buildout or signing a 10 year agreement
> for TV/Phone/Internet and convincing 5 neighbors too ;)
> *Brandon *
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:32 PM Blake Hudson  wrote:
>
>> My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The realtor indicated that ATT, Comcast, and
>> Google Fiber all provided service to the neighborhood and the HOA
>> confirmed. Unfortunately for her, Google fiber laid fiber ~3 years
>> before and her cul-de-sac was developed ~2 years before she moved in. No
>> Google Fiber, no Comcast, just ATT. Both Comcast and Google Fiber were
>> within 100 ft of her property and wouldn't serve her. Google has no
>> plans to serve that cul-de-sac in the future. Comcast did eventually lay
>> cable. I'm sure her and her neighbors aren't the only people in America
>> to experience something similar.
>>
>> On 2/11/2022 3:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> >
>> > >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
>> > the street have no option but slow DSL.
>> >
>> > Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>> >
>> >
>>
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

Excellent example.  I see this all.the.time. She could probably get Comcast
just fine by paying $50k buildout or signing a 10 year agreement for
TV/Phone/Internet and convincing 5 neighbors too ;)
*Brandon *


On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:32 PM Blake Hudson  wrote:

> My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The realtor indicated that ATT, Comcast, and
> Google Fiber all provided service to the neighborhood and the HOA
> confirmed. Unfortunately for her, Google fiber laid fiber ~3 years
> before and her cul-de-sac was developed ~2 years before she moved in. No
> Google Fiber, no Comcast, just ATT. Both Comcast and Google Fiber were
> within 100 ft of her property and wouldn't serve her. Google has no
> plans to serve that cul-de-sac in the future. Comcast did eventually lay
> cable. I'm sure her and her neighbors aren't the only people in America
> to experience something similar.
>
> On 2/11/2022 3:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >
> > >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across
> > the street have no option but slow DSL.
> >
> > Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
> >
> >
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

My example is just from experience.  Not hypothetical, but also not a
specific address I can recall or feel like looking up now.

The reality on the ground as someone who sells access to smallish
businesses mostly in California is as I described.  You can't see it on a
map or database because the map may show a Comcast/att/whomever
pop/availability at an address, but to get said access across the parking
lot or street is a 6 figure build out cost and 6 months or more waiting for
permits and construction to complete so effectively a building right across
the lot or street from another has completely different options.  If you
want to zero in on an area to investigate/research I do recall fairly
recently some business parks in Hayward, CA near 880 that had no options
except bonded copper stuff up to maybe 50/50Mbps for a really high price.
One of them I sold fiber DIA to and they waited about 8 months for permits
and construction and signed a 5 year lease to reduce/avoid buildout costs.


I guess fair cost and speed are subjective, but that clarifies the point I
was making.

Best,
Brandon



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:15 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
> meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
> for years.
>
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
> street have no option but slow DSL.
>
> Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?
>
> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's
> what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that
> was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't
> consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there
> now.  I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters,
> but there's fiber there now.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with
>> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States
>> knows how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G
>> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses
>> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across
>> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively
>> high to get fiber, etc.
>>
>> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
>> Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
>> continually being added and upgraded.
>> *Brandon Svec*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <
>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>>
 Can you provide examples?
>

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG

 Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
 Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

 I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
 Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
 have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
 Niagara Falls.

 This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
 is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
 example as you asked for.

 On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <
 j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using
>> a standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable 
>> results
>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>> >
>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
>> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at 
>> the
>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes
>> down the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while
>> people in rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>> >

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

My mom moves to Olathe, KS. The realtor indicated that ATT, Comcast, and 
Google Fiber all provided service to the neighborhood and the HOA 
confirmed. Unfortunately for her, Google fiber laid fiber ~3 years 
before and her cul-de-sac was developed ~2 years before she moved in. No 
Google Fiber, no Comcast, just ATT. Both Comcast and Google Fiber were 
within 100 ft of her property and wouldn't serve her. Google has no 
plans to serve that cul-de-sac in the future. Comcast did eventually lay 
cable. I'm sure her and her neighbors aren't the only people in America 
to experience something similar.


On 2/11/2022 3:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:


>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across 
the street have no option but slow DSL.


Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
meg".  Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service)
for years.

>An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
street have no option but slow DSL.

Where is this example?  Or is this strictly hypothetical?

I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what
most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds.  The only one that was
close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider
that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now.  I
don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but
there's fiber there now.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG 
wrote:

> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even
> a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows
> how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
> and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could
> have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the
> field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to
> get fiber, etc.
>
> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
> Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
> continually being added and upgraded.
> *Brandon Svec*
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>>
>>> Can you provide examples?

>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>>>
>>> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
>>> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>>>
>>> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
>>> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
>>> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
>>> Niagara Falls.
>>>
>>> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
>>> is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
>>> example as you asked for.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <
>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>>>
 >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
 worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

 Can you provide examples?

 On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
 wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using
> a standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable 
> results
> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> >
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at 
> the
> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes
> down the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while
> people in rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
> >
> > Mark.
>
> ROFLMAO…
>
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
> know at least have GPON or better.
>
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital
> of Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally
> purport to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike
> shed treatment no matter what we do.
>
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Owen
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG]

What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even
a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows
how hit or miss it can be.  An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber
and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL.  Houses could
have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the
field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to
get fiber, etc.

There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too.
Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
continually being added and upgraded.
*Brandon Svec*



On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>>
>> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
>> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>>
>> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
>> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
>> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
>> Niagara Falls.
>>
>> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there
>> is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct
>> example as you asked for.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>>
>>> Can you provide examples?
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
 >
 >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
 standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
 across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
 >
 > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
 connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the
 back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
 >
 > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down
 the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in
 rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
 >
 > Mark.

 ROFLMAO…

 People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
 know at least have GPON or better.

 Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital
 of Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally
 purport to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.

 Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike
 shed treatment no matter what we do.

 There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
 worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

 Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher  wrote:

> Can you provide examples?
>>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG
>
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in (
> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who
> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of
> Niagara Falls.
>
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is
> a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example
> as you asked for.
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>
>> Can you provide examples?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
>>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
>>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>>> >
>>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
>>> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the
>>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>>> >
>>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down
>>> the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in
>>> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>>> >
>>> > Mark.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO…
>>>
>>> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
>>> know at least have GPON or better.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of
>>> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport
>>> to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>>>
>>> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike
>>> shed treatment no matter what we do.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Can you provide examples?
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo_channel=NANOG

Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann
Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.

I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara
and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the
same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara
Falls.

This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is
a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example
as you asked for.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>> >
>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
>> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the
>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down
>> the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in
>> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>> >
>> > Mark.
>>
>> ROFLMAO…
>>
>> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
>> know at least have GPON or better.
>>
>> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of
>> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport
>> to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>>
>> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike
>> shed treatment no matter what we do.
>>
>> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far
>> worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Dave Taht]

There are plenty of places with crappy dsl left in the US, 7mbit
down/1mbit up being fairly common in many small towns.

In my view, however, focusing on dragging fiber to farmland is kind of
silly and better wireless tech (WISP) to be preferred,
and in both the wireless and dsl cases, a real source of problems is
actually... wait for it... the buffering.  I filed this in response to
NTIA's recent RFC on this topic.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FjRo9MNnVOLh733SNPNyqaR1IFee7Q5qbMrmW1PlPr8/edit

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:58 PM Josh Luthman
 wrote:
>
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> >
>> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
>> >> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
>> >> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>> >
>> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
>> > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at 
>> > the back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>> >
>> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
>> > "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in 
>> > rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>> >
>> > Mark.
>>
>> ROFLMAO…
>>
>> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know 
>> at least have GPON or better.
>>
>> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
>> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport 
>> to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>>
>> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
>> treatment no matter what we do.
>>
>> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
>> off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>>
>> Owen
>>


-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Edward McNair]

I have a home in rural Washington state, and my access was definetly 
substandard. I had to bond together multiple internet services to have a 
somewhat modern internet experience. I now have a Starlink's service, which has 
given me more robust speeds. That said, their service still has a ways to go to 
ensure stable connectivity at all hours of the day. Their satellite coverage is 
currently still spotty.

Edward

> On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
>>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
>>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>> 
>> If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband 
>> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the 
>> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
>> 
>> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
>> "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in 
>> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 
> ROFLMAO…
> 
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know 
> at least have GPON or better.
> 
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
> be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
> 
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
> treatment no matter what we do.
> 
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse 
> off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
> 
> Owen
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse
off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Can you provide examples?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a
> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results
> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> >
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband
> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the
> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down
> the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in
> rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
> >
> > Mark.
>
> ROFLMAO…
>
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I
> know at least have GPON or better.
>
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of
> Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport
> to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed
> treatment no matter what we do.
>
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse
> off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Owen
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a 
>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results 
>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> 
> If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband connections" 
> actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the back of the 
> "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the 
> "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in rural 
> America still have no or poor Internet access.
> 
> Mark.

ROFLMAO…

People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know at 
least have GPON or better.

Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of 
Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to 
be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.

Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed 
treatment no matter what we do.

There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off 
from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.

Owen

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:44 AM Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello there,
>
>The other day I was in a place with a very limited internet access
> and I recalled this thread. Sometimes speed is important and many times
> also the amount of data we transfer is too.
>
>I wonder (sorry if there is and I'm not aware of) some kind of data
> per month suggestion/definition?,  1GB, 10 GB, 50 GB, 100 GB?
>
>I mean in the same way there is a minimum speed definition, there
> could be also a minimum "data per day/month" definition", am I right?.
>
>
perhaps you've also seen:
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZfZj2bn_xg

there are datacaps on a bunch of US broadband deployments (policies?) ...

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Alejandro Acosta]

Hello there,

  The other day I was in a place with a very limited internet access 
and I recalled this thread. Sometimes speed is important and many times 
also the amount of data we transfer is too.


  I wonder (sorry if there is and I'm not aware of) some kind of data 
per month suggestion/definition?,  1GB, 10 GB, 50 GB, 100 GB?


  I mean in the same way there is a minimum speed definition, there 
could be also a minimum "data per day/month" definition", am I right?.



Thanks,


Alejandro,



On 27/5/21 8:29 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:


What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?


This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year  speed

1999  200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than 
dialup/ISDN speeds)


2000  200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many 
service providers had 128 kbps upload)


2010   4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015   25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired)
    5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021   ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers 
can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that 
they must deliver better service.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

GPON is full duplex.  Two different wavelengths for the two directions.
1490/1310.

Wireless we'll say you're doing 20 MHz.  That doesn't divide up.  That's
simply 20 MHz half duplex.  With fixed timing (for colocation) it means
that you simply can't shift your ratios.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 8:50 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> Assuming you were able to get the maximum capacity (you don't for a
>> variety of reasons), the maximum capacity of a given access point is 1.2
>> gigabit/s. On a 2:1 ratio, that's about 800 megs down and 400 megs up.
>>
>>
> Here is a graph of traffic from approx 200 GPON customers, with a mix of
> 200/200 and 1000/1000 subscription types:
>
> https://oz9h.dk/graph.png
>
> Something tells me that would also work just fine with wireless operating
> at link speed of 1,2 Gbps. You would of course not be able to do 1000 Mbps
> upload with a link of 400 up, but you would be able to sell 200/200 no
> problem. The limit would be downstream capacity, not upstream.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 1:49 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> Assuming you were able to get the maximum capacity (you don't for a
> variety of reasons), the maximum capacity of a given access point is 1.2
> gigabit/s. On a 2:1 ratio, that's about 800 megs down and 400 megs up.
>
>
Here is a graph of traffic from approx 200 GPON customers, with a mix of
200/200 and 1000/1000 subscription types:

https://oz9h.dk/graph.png

Something tells me that would also work just fine with wireless operating
at link speed of 1,2 Gbps. You would of course not be able to do 1000 Mbps
upload with a link of 400 up, but you would be able to sell 200/200 no
problem. The limit would be downstream capacity, not upstream.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Assuming you were able to get the maximum capacity (you don't for a variety of 
reasons), the maximum capacity of a given access point is 1.2 gigabit/s. On a 
2:1 ratio, that's about 800 megs down and 400 megs up. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 5:03:53 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point. 


Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then sell 
plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100 megs, you'll 
be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why would you do that? 
So that you're relatively capable of providing what you're selling. The 
alternative is gross oversubscription. 




66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000 
symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much less 
oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34 down/up ratio, 
than we are doing with GPON and 1000/1000. We are also doing 128 customers on a 
single OLT port. 


Remember that a single customer only adds a few Mbps peak to your bandwidth 
usage. 


Regards, 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:04 PM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> 66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000
> symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much
> less oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34
> down/up ratio, than we are doing with GPON and 1000/1000. We are also doing
> 128 customers on a single OLT port.
>

Oh, well that might be the difference right there.

Many wisps generally tolerate a much lower oversubscription ratio.   They
want their customers to always get 25Mb/s when they buy a 25Mb/s plan.
 There is none of this 'up to 25Mb/s' that some providers sell.

Most WISPs could easily sell a plan where the 'up to' speed was similar to
fiber.   But then they would have to deal with angry customers who are
whining that they aren't getting their 1Gb/s during peak hours.

BTW, I don't think we've ever built a fiber network with over a 1:32 ratio
for this reason...
-- 
- Forrest

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 11:46 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> 2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point.
>
> Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then
> sell plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100
> megs, you'll be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why
> would you do that? So that you're relatively capable of providing what
> you're selling. The alternative is gross oversubscription.
>

66/34 is 2:1 or exactly the same as GPON (2.4 down, 1.2 up). We sell 1000
symmetrical on that GPON and the customers are happy. You would have much
less oversubscription with 100/100 on a 1.2 Gbps wireless with 66:34
down/up ratio, than we are doing with GPON and 1000/1000. We are also doing
128 customers on a single OLT port.

Remember that a single customer only adds a few Mbps peak to your bandwidth
usage.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

2.4 gigabit per channel, but only 1.2 gigabit from a given access point. 


Most often, WISPs choose down\up ratios between 85/15 and 66/34 and then sell 
plans appropriately. If we're now required to have a symmetric 100 megs, you'll 
be robbing even more of the downstream for the upstream. Why would you do that? 
So that you're relatively capable of providing what you're selling. The 
alternative is gross oversubscription. 


Cable will have to reassign their DOCSIS channels similarly (and whatever 
equipment swaps are needed in the plant to accomplish that). 


VDSL-type services are kind of stuck as I'm not aware of any mechanisms to 
accomplish that. 








and why? 


Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to get higher speeds. I'm just 
against raising the bar until what's under the bar has been taken care of. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 11:18:58 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) < 
li...@packetflux.com > wrote: 



I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space. 


See the following product as an example: 


https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
 

14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO. This is able to talk, in the same 
channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both vertical and 
horizontal polarities at the same time. Total throughput per 40Mhz channel: 
1.2Gb/s per AP. 


Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on the 
same tower front to back using the same channel. So 2.4Gb/s per Frequency. And 
there are dozens of channels available at this point. 






But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per frequency, why 
are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?! 


Regards, 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:21 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per
> frequency, why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!
>

The problem is this, in the US:   If the government decides anything under
100Mb/s second isn't broadband, what happens is that any location that
doesn't have 100Mb/s on a given date (usually shortly after the definition
changes) is eligible for subsidies which are only given to a single
provider for them to build out 100Mb/s within a given amount of time, such
as 5 years.   Even if they do have 100Mb/s the ability to state that they
have covered an area is often tied to providing "facilities based" phone
service. So if a WISP doesn't have 100Mb/s right now, or isn't providing
phone service (which few people want anymore), the government gives away
money for a competitor to come in and overbuild the WISP.  There are often
various strings attached that prevent the average WISP from either applying
for or obtaining these funds.

Note the above is a general description, and each iteration of broadband
subsidies have had different rules, but the general description of the
problem is consistent across iterations.  For example, the first batch of
subsidies were only available to incumbent telephone companies.

The sad thing is that this results in less broadband deployment.   These
subsidies rob WISPs of capital they could and would use to expand into
areas where there is very little to no service at all today.   This is
because the subsidies usually end up going to overbuild the WISP's "cash
cow" locations where they provide what you would consider good quality
internet at a reasonable price.   This overbuild (with a subsidised
competitor) reduces the ability for the WISP to obtain capital to expand
since many WISPs are financed using cash flow, and not by other sources of
revenue.

-- 
- Forrest

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Steven G. Huter]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Mark Tinka wrote:

There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, the 
more, the merrier.


https://afterfiber.nsrc.org/

Steve

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:40 PM Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:

> I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.
>
> See the following product as an example:
>
>
> https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
> 14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO.   This is able to talk, in
> the same channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both
> vertical and horizontal polarities at the same time.  Total throughput
> per 40Mhz channel: 1.2Gb/s per AP.
>
> Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on
> the same tower front to back using the same channel.   So 2.4Gb/s per
> Frequency.  And there are dozens of channels available at this point.
>
>
But isn't that just proving my point? If you can do 2,4 Gbps per frequency,
why are the WISPs whining about a 100 Mbps requirement?!

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Baldur,

Mike and I are both doing FTTH.  We're listening but it doesn't appear you
are saying anything correct. The statement of 5G taking down all WISPs is
probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard on this list.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:50 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>>
>> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
>> experience. Listen to them.
>>
>
>
> Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
>
> Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
> view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
> now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
> their pants off hands down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Who isn't listening to you about FTTH and in what way? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, June 3, 2021 3:50:15 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen < se...@rollernet.us > wrote: 


UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either. 

Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP 
experience. Listen to them. 







Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-) 


Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of view. 
The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available now, nor 
OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat their pants off 
hands down. 


Regards, 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

I think you're really out of touch with what is going on in the WISP space.

See the following product as an example:

https://www.cambiumnetworks.com/products/pmp-450/5-ghz-pmp-450m-fixed-wireless-access-point/
14x14 beam-steering Massive Multi-User MIMO.   This is able to talk, in the
same channel, at the same time, to up to 7 endpoints using both vertical
and horizontal polarities at the same time.  Total throughput per 40Mhz
channel: 1.2Gb/s per AP.

Because of the TDMA synchronization, you can actually hang two of these on
the same tower front to back using the same channel.   So 2.4Gb/s per
Frequency.  And there are dozens of channels available at this point.

Many WISPs are also using LTE hardware.  In fact, most gear that WISPs use
anymore has little resemblance to the "hang a Wifi radio on a tower" past
of the WISP industry.   They're all TDMA synchronization (since there is
little possibility for a FDMA scheme in half-duplex channels), not CSMA
like traditional wifi.   They're all moving to various advanced modulations
including multiple streams, spatial diversity, and a lot of other
high-sophistication modulations to squeeze every bit out of the available
bandwidth.

Note that by pointing this out I'm not arguing for a "WISP everywhere"
model.  Many WISPs operate a hybrid model, deploying FTTH where it makes
economical sense to do so, and using WISP technology where it doesn't.
 It's not uncommon to find areas where it's 'miles per home passed' instead
of 'homes passed per mile'.   In these environments, it is not uncommon to
see situations where the money spent deploying the fiber will never be paid
back, even if 100% of the customer revenue is deployed strictly to pay for
the fiber.

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 2:50 AM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:
>
>> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>>
>> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
>> experience. Listen to them.
>>
>
>
> Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)
>
> Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
> view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
> now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
> their pants off hands down.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>


-- 
- Forrest

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

On the flip-side, what is the penalty for getting Telehealth calls wrong?  It 
could be death.

I’m gonna go coin “megaband” and the minimum upload is going to be 10,000mbps. 

I’m not sure there’s a rational objection to any of this.  Why should humans 
spend our lifetimes waiting on machines?  

640k, that’s all I have to say on the matter.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks>

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On May 31, 2021, at 6:14 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> How many simultaneous telehealth calls can you be in at a time? In my close 
> family (15 - 20 people), do you know how rare it is to have a medical 
> appointment in the same week as someone else, much less the same exact time, 
> much less the same exact time *and* in the same household?
> 
> That's the difference between people speaking emotionally and people speaking 
> rationally. Well sure, *everyone* has to care about healthcare, so let's 
> throw healthcare on the list of OMG things. No one is helped by people trying 
> to debate something's merit based on emotions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, WFH (or e-learning) is much more likely to have simultaneous uses.
> 
> Yes, I agree that 3 megs is getting thin for three video streams. Not 
> impossible, but definitely a lot more hairy. So then what about moving the 
> upload definition to 5 megs? 10 megs? 20 megs? Why does it need to be 100 
> megs?
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" 
> Cc: "Abhi Devireddy" , nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 5:17:36 AM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> 
> On May 28, 2021, at 06:56 , Mike Hammett  <mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
> 
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
> 
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?
> 
> Pretty much everything if you have, say, 3+ people in your house trying to do 
> it at once…
> 
> A decent Zoom call requires ~750Kbps of upstream bandwidth. When you get two
> kids doing remote school and mom and dad each doing $DAYJOB via 
> teleconferences,
> that 3Mbps gets spread pretty thin, especially if you’ve got any other 
> significant use
> of your upstream connection (e.g. kids posting to Tik Tok, etc.)
> 
> Sure, for a single individual, 25/3 might be fine. For a household that has 
> the industry
> standard 2.53 people, it might even still work, but barely. Much above that 
> average
> and things degrade rapidly and not very gracefully.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 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: "Abhi Devireddy" mailto:a...@devireddy.com>>
> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>, "Jason Canady" 
> mailto:ja...@unlimitednet.us>>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:34 AM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
> talk with you.
> 
> There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone 
> who's got a bad connection. 
> Abhi
> 
> Abhi Devireddy
> 
> From: NANOG  <mailto:nanog-bounces+abhi=devireddy@nanog.org>> on behalf of Jason 
> Canady mailto:ja...@unlimitednet.us>>
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>  <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>  
> I second Mike.
> 
> On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I don't think it needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> 
> From: "Sean Donelan"  <mailto:s...@donelan.com>
> To: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM
> Subject: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?
> 
> 
> This is the list of p

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.  Watch 
society’s next golden age come out of Africa.  
-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On Jun 1, 2021, at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/1/21 15:49, Don Fanning wrote:
> 
>> One thing to consider in regards to "developing" places - most people in 
>> Africa and India get their internet from SmartPhones/Mobile devices.  Reason 
>> being: power, mobility, and that in many places, the phone company in many 
>> locations acts as a "western union" for their areas... including bill 
>> pay/wire transfer and digital wallet.  This is due to everyone has phone 
>> bills/minutes/data to purchase - as well as mobile purchasing with 
>> barcodes/SMS, etc...
> 
> The main reason mobile phones took off in Africa is because while almost all 
> countries on the continent had some kind of national telephone network and 
> infrastructure for at least 2.5 decades after independence, it suffered 
> neglect. It wasn't until around 1998 - 2003 that mobile operators sprang up 
> all over the continent, and immediately made landlines obsolete.
> 
> Had public PTT's been serious and kept looking to grow and serve, 
> post-independence, they may not have survived the "scourge" of the mobile 
> network, but they would have been in a great position to deliver wire-based 
> Internet access, be it copper or fibre, later in their lives.
> 
> That innovative services such as phone banking have emerged simply goes to 
> show that the mobile phone (and the network it rides on) is a pathway to 
> solving problems in a local community in a way that matters to them. No point 
> in crying about not being able to open a bank account simply because you 
> don't have a national ID or a street address, when someone who cares can 
> build a simple version of the need for use on even the cheapest of 
> un-smartphones.
> 
> 
>> 
>> They don't really "Netflix and chill" but when they do, you're likely to see 
>> multiple screens occurring and they'll still be on mobile or wifi.
> 
> Most users in Africa that can afford Netflix will usually have some kind of 
> wired service, or failing that, will use a MiFi router that translates 4G to 
> wi-fi. The mobile companies have data plans for all major content services, 
> so that helps deal with affordability there.
> 
> 
>>   So 4G/5G will be of greater benefit to crowded neighborhoods which there 
>> are a lot of them there.
> 
> For me, I still don't see 5G being a model for the mobile operators; too much 
> cost in a space where 4G isn't struggling.
> 
> Moreover, 5G makes sense in dense cities where fibre is already available. 
> Given the chance, the kids will choose wi-fi over *G, even if you offer them 
> unlimited mobile data.
> 
> 
>> Backhaul could easily occur over the LEO satellite constellation since it 
>> will be a long time before you'll see Africa and most of Asia needing 
>> constant signal coverage.
> 
> Africa's days of satellite to build backbones are long behind it. Fibre may 
> not be able to reach all the people, but it will reach the data centres, and 
> the mobile towers.
> 
> 
>> 
>> It's a mistake to think that everyone uses the internet the same way as 
>> people thinking that we all use our cell phones the same way.
> 
> +1.
> 
> Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe]

Thank you Baldur.  I also operate an owned and designed FTTH network, as well 
as global carrier networks.  

If you look at this from first principles, glass fiber optical cable is cheap.  
PVC/HDPE seething is also cheap.   Underground space is cheap.  

Construction, regulation, compliance, and financing are hard.

The latter are all human-caused.  There’s nothing fundamental here stopping us. 
 

So, we have a duty to proceed.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME 

FCC License KJ6FJJ




> On Jun 1, 2021, at 2:40 AM, Baldur Norddahl  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Mike Hammett  > wrote:
> No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building 
> last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger 
> percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last 
> mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money.
> 
> I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home.
> 
> 
> Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what 
> they want.
> 
> Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect 
> is a foolish venture.
> 
> 
> Since you also replied to some of my comments, I will say that I am the 
> founder of a last mile FTTH provider in the greater Copenhagen, Denmark area 
> with thousands of customers. All built for our own money with zero subsidies 
> to customers that would pay good money to upgrade from DSL. I planned, 
> designed and built everything from the network, the outdoor plant, the method 
> we use to dig (directional drilling mostly), which pipes to use, what cable 
> etc. Also marketing, sales and funds raising - in short: everything. We did 
> this from nothing to a company with more than 100 employees today.
> 
> I claim to know the cost and complexity better than most.
> 
> I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality.
> 
> 
> I could say the same. But maybe our reality differs. You seem to be very hung 
> up on what minimums are needed to do a certain job. But that simply is not 
> it. If a person believes his internet is slow, then it is slow, no matter 
> what some experts think would be enough for that persons needs. That means he 
> will buy my offering even though he probably already has VDSL with speeds 
> faster than what you propose. It also means he will consider the available 
> options when weighting pros and cons of a new home.
> 
> Here in Denmark we have a problem that people are moving away from rural 
> areas and to the bigger cities. There are many reasons for this, but one 
> often quoted reason is the lack of good internet.
> 
> Good internet in Denmark is 1000 Mbps for less than USD $50 per month. But I 
> accept that 100 Mbps at a somewhat higher price point is probably a fine 
> speed for rural US, where distances are huge and alternative solutions, such 
> as fixed wireless, may need to be part of the solution. Or maybe Starlink is 
> the solution.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Baldur
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Forrest Christian (List Account)]

Having dealt with this personally, I can guarantee that CAF/RDOF require
phone service to be provided as an option (and no, pointing a customer
toward a third-party voip service doesn't count) to both have an area
counted as "served" (so that you're not overbuilt) and providing phone
service is a condition of these programs.

At this point I'll point out the ridiculousness of the FCC pushing network
neutrality at the exact same time as forcing companies who take these
grants to compete potentially unfairly with internet-based voip providers.

My understanding of the reason is that CAF/RDOF are actually *telephone*
programs which have been extended to do internet.   It's more telephone
w/internet added on than internet w/telephone added on from a policy
standpoint.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:31 PM heasley  wrote:

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


-- 
- Forrest

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 12:47 AM Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.
>
> Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP
> experience. Listen to them.
>


Neither will listen to me when it comes to FTTH so nah :-)

Seriously, it appears to me that both are speaking from a legacy point of
view. The equipment deployed does neither use the new frequencies available
now, nor OFDMA which is a game changer. If nothing changes, 5G will beat
their pants off hands down.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/3/21 00:26, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


Then honestly we should organize and do a better job.

Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds, 
etc.

We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27 
years.

Anyone interested, reach out.  We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m project 
for instance.  First crossing in 20 years.  Clears the SFPUC cable too.

I want everyone onboard, I don’t care about the money (though I’m not 
irresponsible with it) I care about connecting the world.


The number of folk that genuinely want to do good for its own sake, is 
often outnumbered by those who make it a point to find "avenues to eat" 
with every opportunity that comes their way. That is not an easy one to 
fix, despite all of our best intentions.


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/2/21 23:27, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:


Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.


There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, 
the more, the merrier.


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:14 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Do you not see the irony here?  It's suggested the government comes in and
> delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying
> they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years.
>
>
Isn't the request actually to better manage the process/results and not
permit folk to act outside the interests of the citizenry?



> Grants and federal funds are available.  It's a massive amount of work to
> get them, at which point those with money find more profitable ways of
> doing things - like FTTH in a city with 100 subs/mile.
>

 'we have always been at work with elbonia' isn't really the greatest
answer.

How could this be done better?
If you were to re-think the process and be able to build a new process, how
would you achieve the goal outlined in the proposed FCC
direction/regulation?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Do you not see the irony here?  It's suggested the government comes in and
delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying
they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years.

Grants and federal funds are available.  It's a massive amount of work to
get them, at which point those with money find more profitable ways of
doing things - like FTTH in a city with 100 subs/mile.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:30 PM heasley  wrote:

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

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Seth Mattinen]

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




UBNT's AirMax line is not "wifi". Their LTU line isn't either.

Mike and Josh are actual WISP operators. You've stated you have no WISP 
experience. Listen to them.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE]

Then honestly we should organize and do a better job.  

Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds, 
etc.

We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27 
years. 

Anyone interested, reach out.  We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m project 
for instance.  First crossing in 20 years.  Clears the SFPUC cable too.  

I want everyone onboard, I don’t care about the money (though I’m not 
irresponsible with it) I care about connecting the world.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
l...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the 
world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:33 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 6/1/21 19:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:
>> 
>> While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used 
>> first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber 
>> water and power to every human remains.
> 
> I am reasonably certain that every NANOG reader shares this goal.
> 
> Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[heasley]

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*.  The internet was a happy byproduct.

the way that i interpret it, it does not require phone service but does
still offer grants for phone service.

anyway, that is irrelevant.  the point is that grants are offered for
internet services infrastructure (and they are poorly managed).

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Baldur,

Mike and I operate WISPs with dozens/hundreds of towers.  We both operate
fiber networks as well.  What you've stated is simply inaccurate.

Ubiquiti uses TDD for the last several years.  It's not WiFi nor can you
work with 802.11 devices as stations.  Just because it has a separate
frequency doesn't mean it doesn't cause interference - see the harmonic of
Verizon's network affected by the clock rate of the (ironically also Ubnt)
CPU, the older cheaper radios would bleed well past the 10/20/40 MHz
channel it was occupying.

Density is not the only factor.  There are operators that can't deploy
fiber due to extremely high costs of getting through the ground (ie rock)
or aerial (make ready).

802.11ax distances are still limited by 802.11 rules, of which the
distances of a mile or more are not anticipated nor expected.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:00 PM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

> The kind of WISP we have around here is one or more AP on a tower or corn
> silo and that one tower will cover a huge area by line of sight. There will
> be nothing like you describe as each AP has separate frequency and
> therefore no conflict. The gear is more or less standard wifi, often
> Ubiquity.
>
> If the density becomes great enough for scalability to be an issue, you
> have a business case for fiber.
>
> 802.11ax has options for longer guard intervals to make it work at greater
> distances.
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:33 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
>> To have any sort of scalability, you take the free-for-all CSMA/CA and
>> split it into uplink\downlink TDMA time slots. All APs transmit at the same
>> time, then all APs listen at the same time.
>>
>> You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the
>> system. To change the regulatory dynamics of upload\download then requires
>> reconfiguration of the whole ecosystem to facilitate that, resulting in
>> wasted cycles.
>>
>>
>> BTW: A lot of WISPs use heavily modified versions of WiFi, but a lot also
>> use platforms that have nothing in common with WiFi. Very, very few use
>> straight 802.11. Why? Because it sucks at scale.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, the extension of 802.11ax into the 6 GHz band will have variable
>> results. Your usage is still a second class citizen (as it should be) to
>> licensed users of the band.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> Midwest-IX
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> --
>> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl" 
>> *To: *"NANOG" 
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>>
>>
>>
>> tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :
>>
>>>
>>> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
>>> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
>>>  for something that isn't needed.
>>>
>>
>> I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed
>> up/down so why wouldn't a WISP not also be?
>>
>> Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels,
>> simultaneously transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that
>> should allow a WISP to deliver much higher upload.
>>
>> As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
>> utilisation of the airwaves.
>>
>> The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real
>> problem.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Baldur
>>
>>
>>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

I am well versed in how WISPs work. 

Ubiquiti, Cambium, Mikrotik, Radwin, etc. they all have at least one product 
line that uses a modified version of WiFi that works exactly in the way I 
described (well, a lesser extent for Mikrotik). In those modes, a WiFi-only 
device will *not* work in any capacity. They become a single-vendor ecosystem. 
Ubiquiti and Cambium also have product lines that are completely unrelated to 
WiFi. 




The APs no longer have separate frequencies, but they reuse frequencies, 
usually in an ABAB pattern. 


Even if on different frequencies there is indeed conflict (without GPS sync) as 
the RF emissions don't have a hard stop at the channel edge. 




There's still a HUGE gap between the need for GPS sync in fixed wireless and 
the need for fiber. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 4:00:27 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



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


If the density becomes great enough for scalability to be an issue, you have a 
business case for fiber. 


802.11ax has options for longer guard intervals to make it work at greater 
distances. 


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:33 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




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


You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the system. 
To change the regulatory dynamics of upload\download then requires 
reconfiguration of the whole ecosystem to facilitate that, resulting in wasted 
cycles. 




BTW: A lot of WISPs use heavily modified versions of WiFi, but a lot also use 
platforms that have nothing in common with WiFi. Very, very few use straight 
802.11. Why? Because it sucks at scale. 






Also, the extension of 802.11ax into the 6 GHz band will have variable results. 
Your usage is still a second class citizen (as it should be) to licensed users 
of the band. 




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

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



From: "Baldur Norddahl" < baldur.nordd...@gmail.com > 
To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 






tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net >: 






Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP 
capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x... for 
something that isn't needed. 




I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down so 
why wouldn't a WISP not also be? 


Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels, simultaneously 
transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that should allow a WISP 
to deliver much higher upload. 


As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more 
utilisation of the airwaves. 


The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real 
problem. 


Regards 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

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

If the density becomes great enough for scalability to be an issue, you
have a business case for fiber.

802.11ax has options for longer guard intervals to make it work at greater
distances.

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:33 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> To have any sort of scalability, you take the free-for-all CSMA/CA and
> split it into uplink\downlink TDMA time slots. All APs transmit at the same
> time, then all APs listen at the same time.
>
> You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the
> system. To change the regulatory dynamics of upload\download then requires
> reconfiguration of the whole ecosystem to facilitate that, resulting in
> wasted cycles.
>
>
> BTW: A lot of WISPs use heavily modified versions of WiFi, but a lot also
> use platforms that have nothing in common with WiFi. Very, very few use
> straight 802.11. Why? Because it sucks at scale.
>
>
>
> Also, the extension of 802.11ax into the 6 GHz band will have variable
> results. Your usage is still a second class citizen (as it should be) to
> licensed users of the band.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Baldur Norddahl" 
> *To: *"NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
>
>
> tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :
>
>>
>> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
>> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
>>  for something that isn't needed.
>>
>
> I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down
> so why wouldn't a WISP not also be?
>
> Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels,
> simultaneously transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that
> should allow a WISP to deliver much higher upload.
>
> As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
> utilisation of the airwaves.
>
> The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real
> problem.
>
> Regards
>
> Baldur
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:25 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*.  The internet was a happy byproduct.
>
>>
>>
this seems like a useless engagement in hair splitting for the purposes
that don't actually make the original argument void.
My larger point here is that some time ago in the US the gov't decided it
worth the time/expense to raise funds (tax) and pay entities to deploy
'telecom' (phone, which then became internet-paths, dial, and fine
real-internet, dsl, etc) to 'the citizenry'.

It's probably time to discuss (hey,look we are!) the use of that same
mechanism to raise the tide of internet access to the citizenry.
Sure, you can get forked over like Mr Mauch, or Mr Heasley... because the
regulators/funders weren't careful enough... That sounds like a lesson to
learn and correct.
This will likely be expensive, but in a very large portion (80+%) of the
cases it won't actually be expensive to accomplish.

I understand that some folk may have to change their current plans.
I understand that some folk may need to engage in new technologies.

Those sound like opportunities to succeed.

-chris

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

" All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be 
redirected to voip and internet." 






Given that the government has been terrible at picking winner and losers, we're 
better off just shutting the whole thing down than expanding it. 








"grantees are not required to serve an entire FCC census tract" 


Most of the funding mechanisms have required recipients to serve any and all 
customers in the area they are funded for. You are right, though, in that 
process is used to determine eligible areas. The FCC is reforming that aspect 
as we speak. Needless to say, the big operators are fighting that tooth and 
nail. 



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

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

- Original Message -

From: "heasley"  
To: "Josh Luthman"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:18:04 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman: 
> Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking. 
> 
> If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have 
> this current situation where not everyone has fiber? 
> 
> To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies 
> (AT, Frontier, CenturyLink). Did you notice that two of them have filed 
> bankruptcy recently? They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't 
> deploy the services they were paid to do. 
> 
> USF is for phone. Not internet. 

I believe that is incorrect. afaik, 4 Internet connectivity programs have 
been created within the USF. iirc, that occured 7 - 10 years ago. I think 
CAF granted ~1.5T in its last phase. 

All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be 
redirected to voip and internet. 

A significant problem with USF grants is that grantees are not required 
to serve an entire FCC census tract (an area much smaller than a USPS 
zip code) when they accept a grant to service it. Meaning that if just a 
portion, the most convenient portion, of a census tract is serviced, the 
FCC is satisfied and then considers the entire tract served. Which is 
exactly what happened to my area, thanks FCC & Comcast - who also will not 
discuss extending it the ~.5 mile to reach me and neighbors. 

I'd be delighted to have 25M symmetrical. What I can buy at consumer 
prices (~$55 MRC) is .8M/.8M DSL (MTR > 30 days for a few neighbors after 
the last storm). If I were located about 1.5 in any direction, I could 
buy 100M/100M or 1G/100M. No viable 4G or 5G options. There is Sprint 
fiber about 300 feet away, but I'm told it is voice only. There is 
Zayo fiber about .5 miles away, 100M for ~$1k MRC lit or ~$4k dark to 
the telco hotel, but it also has other challanges. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

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


You then need to have the same uplink\downlink ratio on all APs in the system. 
To change the regulatory dynamics of upload\download then requires 
reconfiguration of the whole ecosystem to facilitate that, resulting in wasted 
cycles. 




BTW: A lot of WISPs use heavily modified versions of WiFi, but a lot also use 
platforms that have nothing in common with WiFi. Very, very few use straight 
802.11. Why? Because it sucks at scale. 






Also, the extension of 802.11ax into the 6 GHz band will have variable results. 
Your usage is still a second class citizen (as it should be) to licensed users 
of the band. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 11:07:45 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 






tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net >: 






Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP 
capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x... for 
something that isn't needed. 




I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down so 
why wouldn't a WISP not also be? 


Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels, simultaneously 
transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that should allow a WISP 
to deliver much higher upload. 


As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more 
utilisation of the airwaves. 


The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real 
problem. 


Regards 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[heasley]

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> Phone is telecom.  Internet is not telecom.  Generally speaking.
> 
> If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have
> this current situation where not everyone has fiber?
> 
> To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies
> (AT, Frontier, CenturyLink).  Did you notice that two of them have filed
> bankruptcy recently?  They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't
> deploy the services they were paid to do.
> 
> USF is for phone.  Not internet.

I believe that is incorrect.  afaik, 4 Internet connectivity programs have
been created within the USF.  iirc, that occured 7 - 10 years ago.  I think
CAF granted ~1.5T in its last phase.

All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be
redirected to voip and internet.

A significant problem with USF grants is that grantees are not required
to serve an entire FCC census tract (an area much smaller than a USPS
zip code) when they accept a grant to service it.  Meaning that if just a
portion, the most convenient portion, of a census tract is serviced, the
FCC is satisfied and then considers the entire tract served.  Which is
exactly what happened to my area, thanks FCC & Comcast - who also will not
discuss extending it the ~.5 mile to reach me and neighbors.

I'd be delighted to have 25M symmetrical.  What I can buy at consumer
prices (~$55 MRC) is .8M/.8M DSL (MTR > 30 days for a few neighbors after
the last storm).  If I were located about 1.5 in any direction, I could
buy 100M/100M or 1G/100M.  No viable 4G or 5G options.  There is Sprint
fiber about 300 feet away, but I'm told it is voice only.  There is
Zayo fiber about .5 miles away, 100M for ~$1k MRC lit or ~$4k dark to
the telco hotel, but it also has other challanges.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*.  The internet was a happy byproduct.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM heasley  wrote:

> Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:
> > Phone is telecom.  Internet is not telecom.  Generally speaking.
> >
> > If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we
> have
> > this current situation where not everyone has fiber?
> >
> > To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies
> > (AT, Frontier, CenturyLink).  Did you notice that two of them have
> filed
> > bankruptcy recently?  They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't
> > deploy the services they were paid to do.
> >
> > USF is for phone.  Not internet.
>
> I believe that is incorrect.  afaik, 4 Internet connectivity programs have
> been created within the USF.  iirc, that occured 7 - 10 years ago.  I think
> CAF granted ~1.5T in its last phase.
>
> All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be
> redirected to voip and internet.
>
> A significant problem with USF grants is that grantees are not required
> to serve an entire FCC census tract (an area much smaller than a USPS
> zip code) when they accept a grant to service it.  Meaning that if just a
> portion, the most convenient portion, of a census tract is serviced, the
> FCC is satisfied and then considers the entire tract served.  Which is
> exactly what happened to my area, thanks FCC & Comcast - who also will not
> discuss extending it the ~.5 mile to reach me and neighbors.
>
> I'd be delighted to have 25M symmetrical.  What I can buy at consumer
> prices (~$55 MRC) is .8M/.8M DSL (MTR > 30 days for a few neighbors after
> the last storm).  If I were located about 1.5 in any direction, I could
> buy 100M/100M or 1G/100M.  No viable 4G or 5G options.  There is Sprint
> fiber about 300 feet away, but I'm told it is voice only.  There is
> Zayo fiber about .5 miles away, 100M for ~$1k MRC lit or ~$4k dark to
> the telco hotel, but it also has other challanges.
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:05 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> WISP is not symmetrical.  Wireless isn't symmetrical.  Nor is cable/dsl.
>

DSL splits the available frequencies into downstream and upstream, such
that usually much more frequencies are allocated downstream.  Wifi on the
other hand does no such thing. The clients and the base are exactly the
same and will send at the same bitrate. With wifi you can send or you can
receive, but not both at the same time. Which means wireless is perfectly
symmetrical in that you can either download at full speed, or upload at
full speed, but not both at the same time.


>
> WiFi 6E should have MU-MIMO which is something the WISPs have had for a
> few years, but not on equipment that speaks 802.11 WiFi.  That protocol
> wasn't really designed to do 1-15 miles, it was designed for 1-150 feet.
> That doesn't really have anything to do with upload, I don't know where you
> got that.
>
>
It is true that wifi is designed for short distances. That has not stopped
WISPs from using it for longer distances anyway.

Wifi 6E (802.11ax) has centrally controlled OFDMA which is used to assign
resource units to clients. This is completely different from previous wifi
versions. It means the selected frequency is split into 26 to 996 smaller
frequency bands, which can then be allocated to clients as needed. This
allows clients to send without any risk of collision with other clients and
clients can dynamically ask the base for more resource units, if it needs
to send much data etc. All of this is more like 5G than previous wifi. For
a WISP it should result in drastic improvements to upload, since you will
have less collisions and multiple clients sending at the same time.



> >As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
> utilisation of the airwaves.
>
> That's simply not going to happen.  Do you think the cell companies
> stopped deploying towers, too?
>

I am not sure what you want to say with the comment about cell companies. I
am saying that providing 10, 100 or 1000 Mbps upload to my customers on our
FTTH network makes little to no difference in the amount of upload that
happens. It will be the same on a WISP - why would it not be? So when you
go from dog slow upload to super fast upload, all that means is that the
airwaves will be idle more percent of the time. And when you do have the
occasional customer that uploads a lot, he will not step as much on the
other customers due to OFDMA.

Since Wifi shares the same frequencies for up and down, having one fast
will free time slots for the other.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

"New applications could be developed, or new ways of using the bandwidth could 
be possible, if only the bandwidth existed." 




That bandwidth is available to a sufficient number of people that bandwidth 
availability isn't an impediment to any development. Some people had broadband, 
then came Napster, then broadband exploded. Obviously it isn't that clear cut. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Blake Hudson"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 9:29:53 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



On 6/1/2021 10:50 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote: 





On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied that 
uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a formula. 
An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to 80% of the 
population is the definition of broadband. When 80% of the population has 
access to 100/100 Mbps home service, then 100/100 becomes the benchmark. When 
80% of the population has access to 1/1 Gbps home service, then 1/1 becomes the 
benchmark. Areas that don't have service that meets the benchmark would be 
eligible for future-proof build-out incentives, with incentives exponentially 
increasing as the area falls further and further behind the benchmark. With 
100/100 Mbps as the benchmark, areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 
1.5 Mbps/384k DSL should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher 
priority if the benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps. 




I love this idea! I think this may be the most useful nugget in the thread. 

There is a bit of chicken vs egg situation where applications don't use X+1 
bandwidth because folks only have X bandwidth. New applications could be 
developed, or new ways of using the bandwidth could be possible, if only the 
bandwidth existed. On the other side of the coin, ISPs don't invest in faster 
speeds and folks don't purchase more than X bandwidth because no applications 
that exist today requires more than X. The latter is where our current 
conversation seems to have landed. However, we all know that the trend is 
towards increasing performance, just at a steady pace and some folks getting a 
performance bump before others. When the masses gained access to consistent 10M 
download speeds, suddenly applications that were niche before start becoming 
ubiquitous (streaming HD video was a good example of this). When the masses 
gained access to 3M upload, applications like video conferencing suddenly 
started to became more common place. Unfortunately, the folks that were late in 
receiving access to these performance thresholds became the digital "have-nots" 
once these applications become available (they were doing just fine before 
because everyone around them was doing things differently). 

I tried to think back towards a goal of ensuring that everyone has "good 
internet" access (or that as few people are left behind as possible), and 
wondered if a yearly "cost of living" type adjustment was required. However, I 
think that might land us in an ever competing situation that ultimately may be 
unproductive. Your sliding scale based on the performance of the most common 
internet access (an 80% threshold) makes great sense as applications will 
target the performance level of the large market. An occasional audit of the 
state of the internet and adjustment to our thresholds for what is considered 
the norm would be a great way to define where the low end is and lift these 
folks out of the "poor internet" group and help get them into the "good 
internet" group. I am now really curious where that threshold would land today. 
Would we be above or below the current definition of broadband? 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Cost no object, sure. However, cost is always an object, so now we have to get 
more naunced. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Mark Tinka"  
To: "Josh Luthman"  
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group"  
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 8:39:11 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote: 

> I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second). 
> Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has. 

Cost aside, I'm sure you'd want everyone to have fibre it was affordable. 

Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available. 

Mark. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

WISP is not symmetrical.  Wireless isn't symmetrical.  Nor is cable/dsl.

WiFi 6E should have MU-MIMO which is something the WISPs have had for a few
years, but not on equipment that speaks 802.11 WiFi.  That protocol wasn't
really designed to do 1-15 miles, it was designed for 1-150 feet.  That
doesn't really have anything to do with upload, I don't know where you got
that.

>As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
utilisation of the airwaves.

That's simply not going to happen.  Do you think the cell companies stopped
deploying towers, too?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 12:08 PM Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

>
>
> tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :
>
>>
>> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
>> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
>>  for something that isn't needed.
>>
>
> I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down
> so why wouldn't a WISP not also be?
>
> Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels,
> simultaneously transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that
> should allow a WISP to deliver much higher upload.
>
> As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
> utilisation of the airwaves.
>
> The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real
> problem.
>
> Regards
>
> Baldur
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Phone is telecom.  Internet is not telecom.  Generally speaking.

If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have
this current situation where not everyone has fiber?

To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies
(AT, Frontier, CenturyLink).  Did you notice that two of them have filed
bankruptcy recently?  They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't
deploy the services they were paid to do.

USF is for phone.  Not internet.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:39 AM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:37 AM Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
>
>> Oh I see where you're coming from.
>>
>> "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is
>> ever actually free.  In other words, making it affordable for everyone
>> comes at a cost to everyone.
>>
>>>
>>>
> isn't much of the telecom (phone/internet) access in the US funded through
> some public funds already/anyway? (taxes, uniform service fees, etc)
> Why is this problematic?
>

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[aaron1]

Ethernet AUI , LOL

 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

tir. 1. jun. 2021 23.57 skrev Mike Hammett :

>
> Requiring a 100 meg upload really changes up the dynamics of the WISP
> capabilities, resulting in fiber-only at a cost increase of 20x - 40x...
>  for something that isn't needed.
>

I will admit to zero WISP experience but wifi is symmetrical speed up/down
so why wouldn't a WISP not also be?

Wifi 6E higher speed and base control of clients, subchannels,
simultaneously transmission from multiple clients etc. All good stuff that
should allow a WISP to deliver much higher upload.

As soon a certain threshold is reached, higher speed will not cause more
utilisation of the airwaves.

The WISP will need to invest in wifi 6E gear, which I suspect is the real
problem.

Regards

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

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




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

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


Mike, do you see this as an example where 25Mbps was not sufficient for 
today's usage (as demonstrated by the change in actual usage measured 
after speeds were upgraded)? Or do you see this as an example showing 
that 25Mbps was fine (because the change measured was not great)? To 
that end, was the upgrade from 25M -> 200M wasteful? or was it useful?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Jeff]

On 6/2/21 04:44, Peter Kristolaitis wrote:

On 2021-06-02 4:25 a.m., Mark Tinka wrote:

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


Is that a thing?

Just kidding :-).

Mark.


Of course it is.  Commonly referred to as SaaS -- Steak As A Service. 
You order whatever type of steak you want, then the vendor manages the 
rest for you -- allocating a slice of the hardware, managing the entire 
lifecycle from system assembly to deprovisioning, system burn-in, etc. 
The more modern vendors can even provide real-time GPS tracking and 
fault monitoring of your hardware (though automated remediation is 
lacking as it's unable to handle common problem like "hardware tangled 
in barbed geofence").


The lead time kinda sucks though, and it's often worth the premium to be 
able to immediately get what you want from a local vendor.



Sounds like the perfect application for blockchain.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/2/21 16:35, Josh Luthman wrote:


Oh I see where you're coming from.

"No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing 
is ever actually free.  In other words, making it affordable for 
everyone comes at a cost to everyone.


See: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch 



That made me smile :-)...

Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Christopher Morrow]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:37 AM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> Oh I see where you're coming from.
>
> "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is
> ever actually free.  In other words, making it affordable for everyone
> comes at a cost to everyone.
>
>>
>>
isn't much of the telecom (phone/internet) access in the US funded through
some public funds already/anyway? (taxes, uniform service fees, etc)
Why is this problematic?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Oh I see where you're coming from.

"No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is
ever actually free.  In other words, making it affordable for everyone
comes at a cost to everyone.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:11 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 6/2/21 15:53, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> "If it was affordable" is a tricky statement.  There's no such thing as a
> free lunch.  If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it
> "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra
> steps.
>
>
> Nobody says we should offer free fibre.
>
> There are markets that find mobile data unaffordable.
>
>
>
> To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does power.
> If every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could easily hook up
> that guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of power/water in the
> Nevada desert.  Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment
> building?  One gets solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with
> neighbors and gets fiber internet.
>
> Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for
> this topic, please.
>
>
> You now see why I don't live in the U.S. :-).
>
> Seriously, in case it wasn't obvious, I don't live in the U.S., nor am I
> American. Translation, it probably is not harmful to compare this issue
> with non-U.S. markets, which was your argument.
>
>
>
> In what instance?  Power has cost assistance and water in most
> environments is pretty accessible.  I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
>
> Again, non-U.S. context.
>
> There are many markets where folk have a mobile phones and some data, but
> no access to power or clean water. In others, bringing water or power to
> areas means bribing officials for years and still getting nothing. But they
> may be able to pick up some 3G :-).
>
> Mark.
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG]

> Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets 
> solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets 
> fiber internet.

They both get fiber internet and chose where to live, so sure why not? Why are 
so many of us in the US so against something that can benefit everybody? Why 
must many of us feel that we have to be above others or benefit more than 
others based on arbitrary decisions. I’d bet rural communities would grow if 
solid internet was not even a concern anymore. I know family who live “in the 
city” (<6000 population) that need good internet and simply can’t get it even a 
couple of miles outside of town unless they live directly off the main two-lane 
highway in and out. Many of them are relying 100% on grandfathered unlimited 4G 
hotspots for all of their connectivity, and it’s a huge struggle.

Where’s the nearest fiber for many of them? A mile away or less, and plenty of 
homes around them that would be connected up along the way.

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:53 AM, Josh Luthman  
wrote:

> "If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free 
> lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it 
> "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps.
>
> To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does power. If 
> every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could easily hook up that 
> guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of power/water in the Nevada 
> desert. Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets 
> solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets 
> fiber internet.
>
> Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for this 
> topic, please.
>
>>Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.
>
> In what instance? Power has cost assistance and water in most environments is 
> pretty accessible. I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:39 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>>> I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second).
>>> Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has.
>>
>> Cost aside, I'm sure you'd want everyone to have fibre it was affordable.
>>
>> Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.
>>
>> Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Blake Hudson]

On 6/1/2021 10:50 PM, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG wrote:


On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be 
applied that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as 
the basis for a formula. An example might be...the basic service tier 
speed available to 80% of the population is the definition of 
broadband. When 80% of the population has access to 100/100 Mbps home 
service, then 100/100 becomes the benchmark. When 80% of the 
population has access to 1/1 Gbps home service, then 1/1 becomes the 
benchmark. Areas that don't have service that meets the benchmark 
would be eligible for future-proof build-out incentives, with 
incentives exponentially increasing as the area falls further and 
further behind the benchmark. With 100/100 Mbps as the benchmark, 
areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 1.5 Mbps/384k DSL 
should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher priority if the 
benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps.




I love this idea! I think this may be the most useful nugget in the thread.

There is a bit of chicken vs egg situation where applications don't use 
X+1 bandwidth because folks only have X bandwidth. New applications 
could be developed, or new ways of using the bandwidth could be 
possible, if only the bandwidth existed. On the other side of the coin, 
ISPs don't invest in faster speeds and folks don't purchase more than X 
bandwidth because no applications that exist today requires more than X. 
The latter is where our current conversation seems to have landed. 
However, we all know that the trend is towards increasing performance, 
just at a steady pace and some folks getting a performance bump before 
others. When the masses gained access to consistent 10M download speeds, 
suddenly applications that were niche before start becoming ubiquitous 
(streaming HD video was a good example of this). When the masses gained 
access to 3M upload, applications like video conferencing suddenly 
started to became more common place. Unfortunately, the folks that were 
late in receiving access to these performance thresholds became the 
digital "have-nots" once these applications become available (they were 
doing just fine before because everyone around them was doing things 
differently).


I tried to think back towards a goal of ensuring that everyone has "good 
internet" access (or that as few people are left behind as possible), 
and wondered if a yearly "cost of living" type adjustment was required. 
However, I think that might land us in an ever competing situation that 
ultimately may be unproductive. Your sliding scale based on the 
performance of the most common internet access (an 80% threshold) makes 
great sense as applications will target the performance level of the 
large market. An occasional audit of the state of the internet and 
adjustment to our thresholds for what is considered the norm would be a 
great way to define where the low end is and lift these folks out of the 
"poor internet" group and help get them into the "good internet" group. 
I am now really curious where that threshold would land today. Would we 
be above or below the current definition of broadband?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/2/21 15:53, Josh Luthman wrote:

"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as 
a free lunch.  If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to 
make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it 
with extra steps.


Nobody says we should offer free fibre.

There are markets that find mobile data unaffordable.




To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does 
power.  If every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could 
easily hook up that guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of 
power/water in the Nevada desert.  Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ 
person apartment building?  One gets solitude and fiber internet, the 
other has to deal with neighbors and gets fiber internet.


Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for 
this topic, please.


You now see why I don't live in the U.S. :-).

Seriously, in case it wasn't obvious, I don't live in the U.S., nor am I 
American. Translation, it probably is not harmful to compare this issue 
with non-U.S. markets, which was your argument.





In what instance?  Power has cost assistance and water in most 
environments is pretty accessible. I'm not sure what you mean here.


Again, non-U.S. context.

There are many markets where folk have a mobile phones and some data, 
but no access to power or clean water. In others, bringing water or 
power to areas means bribing officials for years and still getting 
nothing. But they may be able to pick up some 3G :-).


Mark.