Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>]

> On Feb 28, 2022, at 4:44 PM, Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com> wrote:
>
> That is North Dakota, not population centers.  Click the link.

> You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living?  That's a poor excuse for data.

I did. The numbers are related to population, not area. If you move outside of the major population centers, you get 
exponentially better service. I also checked several of the area codes I am very familiar with and they list wireless 
carriers over regional/local providers who provide a better and more robust service. Several of the details about the 
providers services are also flawed.

It looks more like a marketing site than a truth source.

> > These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.
>
> Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a couple places?

I lived there and worked with nearly every regional provider in the state for oner a decade. I know their networks and 
the statewide coop that they own’s network. 

> > but this is a problem that is more political than technical.
>
> Strong disagreement here.  What makes you say this?

I’ve been doing SP network design for more than 20 years. If the LECs wanted to provide the service in these areas, 
they could have. They decided it was better to just milk the system, then prepare for the future.

> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us <mailto:brian.johnson () netgeek us>> wrote:
> I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy LECs operate). I have lived and worked there 
> for telecommunications Coops which device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the most cutting 
> edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of the larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs 
> starting to build out these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them.
>
> I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but this is a problem that is more political 
> than technical. In rural areas we are more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear to be 
> more interested in political wins.
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com <mailto:josh () imaginenetworksllc com>> 
> > wrote:
> >
> > According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think the public 477 is 2 years? behind)  What 
> > makes you believe it's nearly 100%?
> >
> > https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota <https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota>
> > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us <mailto:brian.johnson () netgeek us>> 
> > wrote:
> > Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of 
> > North Dakota is serviced by FTTH solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
> >
> > I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. 
> >
> > > On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com <mailto:josh () imaginenetworksllc com>> 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Ryan,
> > >
> > > This discussion was in regards to urban areas.
> > >
> > > Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural area based on your description.  It looks 
> > > like there are absolutely a massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless.  Since it sounds like your 
> > > only option, which is better than no option at all, that's probably why no wired solution has decided to build 
> > > service there.  At $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a viable business plan to 
> > > you?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon <ryan () u13 net <mailto:ryan () u13 net>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > > > > What is the embarrassment?
> > > > That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the times with broadband. I'm going to 
> > > > get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't 
> > > > installed the NID. 
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar enough.  I am in  Loudoun County less than 
> > > 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.    My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 
> > > 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  
> > >
> > > Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down the street from me, but everyone else 
> > > outside of the towns and developer-built communities have almost zero options.
> > >
> > > Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 
> > > minutes in certain directions from Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.
> > >
> > > Ryan
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas <mike () mtcc com <mailto:mike () mtcc com>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > > > > > I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the generic "it isn't in some parts of San 
> > > > > > Jose".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has a lot to do with California and its 
> > > > > > extraordinarily complicated and near impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status.  This makes competition 
> > > > > > pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily high.  I'm obviously not going to be 
> > > > > > one that claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could potentially 
> > > > > > be causation.
> > > > > Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they are really small. Comcast can't be 
> > > > > bothered that I've ever heard. The only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's 
> > > > > really an embarrassment. 
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <owen () delong com <mailto:owen () delong com>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <josh () imaginenetworksllc com <mailto: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 <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