RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Travis Garrison <tgarrison () netviscom com>]

In my location, I can get 1.5M from CenturyLink. That is the only hardwired option. Typical speeds was around 700K. I 
spent the money and installed my own 180ft tower and a microwave connection to a bigger town that I could get a fiber 
circuit at. Now we have linked up several other smaller towns through wireless links and providing a better service 
than what is there.

Travis

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+tgarrison=netviscom.com () nanog org> On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 3:15 PM
To: Brandon Svec <bsvec () teamonesolutions com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:nanog () nanog org>> wrote:


> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa<mailto: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