Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com>]

> 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