Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , 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?

There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon valley alone.

> 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.

Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in 
the US with a population of 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 people/sq. mile 
(compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).

Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 
8,499/Sq. Mi.

I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m sure this situation exists in other states as 
well, but I don’t have actual data.

The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides 
for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban parts of America…
        1.      USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
        2.      Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not areas of town houses, smaller 
apartment complexes, or single family dwellings.
        3.      Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and where the developers would literally 
pay the utilities to pre-deploy in order to boost sales prices.

Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities 
of average Americans underserved.

Owen



> 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 
> <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> 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