nanog mailing list archives

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections


From: Aaron Wendel <aaron () wholesaleinternet net>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 12:13:52 -0600

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&T.  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 <josh () imaginenetworksllc com> 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 <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
    <josh () imaginenetworksllc com> wrote:

        OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.

        On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher
        <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:

                Can you provide examples?


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG
            <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_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
            <josh () 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
                <nanog () nanog org> wrote:



                    > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka
                    <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



--
================================================================
Aaron Wendel
Chief Technical Officer
Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097)
(816)550-9030
http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
================================================================


Current thread: