Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tim Burke <tim () mid net>]

Totally agree with this. We should be focusing on those in rural areas that can’t get anything, rather than trying to 
get blazing fast speeds to everyone in the cities.

There are lots of areas here in Texas that can’t get anything other than low speed fixed wireless if they’re lucky or 
satellite… one of the major telcos (Frontier) has abandoned their DSLAMs in these areas, and it’s extremely cost 
prohibitive to build out fiber down rural FM roads just to get a couple of people 1gbps. Most of these people would 
kill to get a consistent 25/3.

V/r
Tim

Sent from my iPhone

On May 28, 2021, at 8:36 AM, Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com> wrote:


There are millions of people that have 0 mbps (or dialup, satellite, etc) and they can't function day to day like 
everyone else in town.

Changing the definition of broadband to yet again, to a faster speed will do nothing for these people except slow the 
pace at which they get connectivity.  Why do people "in town" need to go from 25/3 to 100/10 when we really should be 
focusing on the people with nothing?

Changing the definition to 100/100 kills every technology except for fiber.  Every single cable internet connection 
suddenly becomes "not internet".  Do we really want another AT&T that ends up with all of the primary last mile 
technology to all the major cities again?

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


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Chris Adams (IT) <Chris.Adams () ung edu<mailto:Chris.Adams () ung edu>> wrote:
I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change the definition. Is it strictly the 
business/capital outlay expense?


Thanks,

Chris Adams

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu () nanog org<mailto:ung.edu () nanog org>> On Behalf Of Jason Canady
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM
To: nanog () nanog org<mailto:nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the University of North Georgia. Do not click links or open attachments 
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is fraudulent, please forward 
to spam () ung edu<mailto:spam () ung edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT Service Desk at 706-864-1922.

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=>

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=>

________________________________
From: "Sean Donelan" <sean () donelan com><mailto:sean () 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 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.