Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Cory Sell via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

While I agree, one thing to remember is the lack of any urgency to build out that infrastructure with the standards as 
low as they are in the last decade. It’s already not really being extended with haste, I doubt raising the definition 
will be the straw that breaks the camels back here. Seems to me that back has already been broken long ago.

I do think sprawl builds should be a concerted, separate effort, but I don’t think it should hinder this change. 
There’s plenty of people NOT in BFE that are just an hour or two outside a major city with terrible service and this 
change could at least force the ISPs to do something about that. Would it cause them to abandon a large portion of 
their rural builds in the middle of nowhere? I severely doubt it, but I’d love to hear more.

Sent from ProtonMail for iOS

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:01 AM, Tim Burke <tim () mid net> wrote:

> 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> 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> On Behalf Of Jason Canady
> > > Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM
> > > To: 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
> > > > 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.