Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

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 <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?
>
> 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 <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
> > > >
> > > > 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