Haudy, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338708A1.pdf Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:50 PM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling.
Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP code to the top 10 websites), data cap info, and bottom line price including all unavoidable fees.
ISP-provided WiFi routers would only be included in the bottom line price if the ISP requires said WiFi routers as mandatory CPE.
--- Also, all this talk about higher minimum downstream and upstream bandwidth is moot if simple data caps remain in place. Scrap simple data caps, especially those that do not recognize that bandwidth availability varies throughout the day.
An alternative to simple data caps is to apply destination-agnostic bandwidth shaping during peak usage periods on the ISP's network, with the heaviest generators of on-peak traffic being deprioritized. This still allows for an ISP to offer various tiers of service that have different data bucket sizes. These might range from a discount tier of 'always deprioritized during peaks' to a default tier of 'deprioritized after 1 TB of monthly data transfer during peaks' to a premium tier of 'never deprioritized during peaks'.
--- Grants: hold recipients of USF or other build-out grant money accountable. That could mean incentives for build outs that are future-proof on the scale of decades. An incentive that pays per foot, for conduit and fiber installed in previously unserved areas, if that conduit actually serves the properties along the route.
Empty conduit is incredibly future proof. I have seen fiber installs being placed in orange plastic tubing, which means even if some new form of fiber is needed later, exchanging the fiber in the conduit will be possible without requiring more trenching or drilling.
--- On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a formula. An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to 80% of the population is the definition of broadband. When 80% of the population has access to 100/100 Mbps home service, then 100/100 becomes the benchmark. When 80% of the population has access to 1/1 Gbps home service, then 1/1 becomes the benchmark. Areas that don't have service that meets the benchmark would be eligible for future-proof build-out incentives, with incentives exponentially increasing as the area falls further and further behind the benchmark. With 100/100 Mbps as the benchmark, areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 1.5 Mbps/384k DSL should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher priority if the benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps.
There also needs to be a way for properties to report 'I am not being served'. This combined with clawbacks is a way to assure claimed build-out funds don't leave service gaps in places build-out funds were spent.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 20:28 Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:48 PM Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -0000, scott said:
$10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years.
On the high side: 14 years.
Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even.
The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long break-even schedule when short-term profits get emphasized. Telcos strung a lot of copper when they were assured of multiple decades of returns - and even *then* getting it out to rural areas required providing more incentive....
(going to be pretty us-centric, sorry 'not use folks', also this isn't about valdis's message directly) There's a bunch of discussion which seems to sideline 'most of the population' and then the conversation ratholes on talk about folk that are not grouped together closely (living in cities/towns). I think this is a good example of: "Perfect is the enemy of the good" in that there are a whole bunch, 82% or so[1], of folk live 'in cities' (or near enough) as of 2019. If the 'new' standard is 100/100, that'd be perfectly servicable and deployable to 82% of the population.
Wouldn't it make sense to either: 1) not offer subsidies to city-centric deployments (or pro-rate those) 2) get return on the longer-haul 'not city' deployments via slightly higher costs elsewhere? (or shift the subisidies to cover the rural deployments more completely?)
Yes 'telco' folk will have to play ball, but also they get to keep their 'we do broadband' marketting.. Holding back ~80% of the population because you can't sort the other 20% out (or a large portion of that 20%) in a sane manner sure seems shortsighted. I get that trenching fiber down 'state-route-foobar' is hard, and costly, but throwing up your hand and declaring that 'no one needs XXX mbps' is more than just a little obstructionist.
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/269967/urbanization-in-the-united-states... .