100/100 minimum for sure. In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps. We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed. I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe. On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less? Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

 Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and exploring. Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap. Relatively speaking. (And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.) 8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people. That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone. Are you ready? Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ

On May 28, 2021, at 15:41, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to have fiber?

Fiber gets deployed to certain geographic areas because they’re lucky? This is definitely news to me! Next the telecom industry will be regulated as a game of chance? If only society had mechanisms to push societally beneficially developments so it wouldn’t all just be a matter of luck! Ask

We’re about to become a multi-planet species. Upload will matter. Remember this message lol. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 28, 2021, at 4:08 PM, Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov> wrote:

 It’s not about being lucky, it’s that the grant dollars are being siphoned up by folks providing a mediocre product. There are fiber providers that can make a rural build pencil if they were eligible. The point of the definition is to encourage building a better product.

To your previous question about usage, I took a quick look at one of my smaller GPON shelves and most times the download to upload ratio is roughly 4 to 1 across all the subs on that shelf. That’s a healthy upload by itself, but there was a 5 minute datapoint just now where the upload spiked to about triple the download rate. Someone did a huge upload, and got it over and done with quick. Yes people can live with less bandwidth, but why would you want to?

The feedback I hear from more and more customers with regards to upload is teleconferencing for work/school and IOT type devices uploading to the cloud….

Brandon

From: Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 3:42 PM To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> Cc: Brandon Price <PriceB@SherwoodOregon.gov>; NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUUUUUGE amount of areas that aren't lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.

So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to have fiber?

-Mike

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

...

On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

 Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and exploring.

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap.

Relatively speaking.

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.

That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.

Are you ready?

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

-- Mike Lyon mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

You respond as if fiber installations were all decided by people rolling dice during a tabletop gaming session. Places with fiber got invested into by the providers of those areas, and that should be constantly expanded. Maybe companies unwilling to do so shouldn’t be getting subsidies. Maybe high speed internet access should be treated as a utility such as clean water and electricity if providers are completely unwilling to expand and bring the rest of America into 2021? Sent from ProtonMail for iOS On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 5:41 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

Fiber is cool and all, but there is a HUUUUUGE amount of areas that aren't lucky enough to have fiber and wireless is the only way to go.

So, we up the minimum to 100 Mbps just because some areas are lucky enough to have fiber?

-Mike

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:38 PM Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:

...

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

...

On May 28, 2021, at 3:29 PM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

 Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

Simple, our time isn’t free. The less time humanity itself spends waiting on downloads, the more we spend loving, celebrating, embracing, playing and exploring.

Really, fiber is fiber, it’s just about optics from there, and those are cheap.

Relatively speaking.

(And ignoring WISPSs and rural economies of scale but I digress.)

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.

That’s what it will take to wire the future. 32k res AR environments; 1TB video games, distance learning via implant, full self driving cars - Qualcomm itself says bandwidth is to grow 1000-fold in the next 9 years alone.

Are you ready?

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

--

Mike Lyon mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

On 5/29/21 00:38, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.

Technically speaking, 8 billion people is not 8 billion households :-). But the bigger problem is getting fibre to every family in the world is not yet currently feasible. There is a reason developing markets have a lot more mobile phones than they have people, or the energy to charge them. Mark.

On 5/31/21 11:32, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

But why would the goal be fiber to every household? There are other ways to deliver good internet. In fact all of the major platforms can do so: fiber, coax, DSL, fixed wireless, 4G / 5G. The fiber platform will do so naturally, the others may require some extra investment but are still options.

I think the goal to get fibre to all corners should be maintained. However, one has to remain practical and use the most appropriate alternative, if fibre is not feasible.

Of course there are developing countries where the goal is any internet at all. I hope that is not the case for US broadband.

I have often been surprised about the quality of the Internet in "developed" environments :-). Mark.

On 6/1/21 15:49, Don Fanning wrote:

One thing to consider in regards to "developing" places - most people in Africa and India get their internet from SmartPhones/Mobile devices. Reason being: power, mobility, and that in many places, the phone company in many locations acts as a "western union" for their areas... including bill pay/wire transfer and digital wallet.  This is due to everyone has phone bills/minutes/data to purchase - as well as mobile purchasing with barcodes/SMS, etc...

The main reason mobile phones took off in Africa is because while almost all countries on the continent had some kind of national telephone network and infrastructure for at least 2.5 decades after independence, it suffered neglect. It wasn't until around 1998 - 2003 that mobile operators sprang up all over the continent, and immediately made landlines obsolete. Had public PTT's been serious and kept looking to grow and serve, post-independence, they may not have survived the "scourge" of the mobile network, but they would have been in a great position to deliver wire-based Internet access, be it copper or fibre, later in their lives. That innovative services such as phone banking have emerged simply goes to show that the mobile phone (and the network it rides on) is a pathway to solving problems in a local community in a way that matters to them. No point in crying about not being able to open a bank account simply because you don't have a national ID or a street address, when someone who cares can build a simple version of the need for use on even the cheapest of un-smartphones.

They don't really "Netflix and chill" but when they do, you're likely to see multiple screens occurring and they'll still be on mobile or wifi.

Most users in Africa that can afford Netflix will usually have some kind of wired service, or failing that, will use a MiFi router that translates 4G to wi-fi. The mobile companies have data plans for all major content services, so that helps deal with affordability there.

  So 4G/5G will be of greater benefit to crowded neighborhoods which there are a lot of them there.

For me, I still don't see 5G being a model for the mobile operators; too much cost in a space where 4G isn't struggling. Moreover, 5G makes sense in dense cities where fibre is already available. Given the chance, the kids will choose wi-fi over *G, even if you offer them unlimited mobile data.

Backhaul could easily occur over the LEO satellite constellation since it will be a long time before you'll see Africa and most of Asia needing constant signal coverage.

Africa's days of satellite to build backbones are long behind it. Fibre may not be able to reach all the people, but it will reach the data centres, and the mobile towers.

It's a mistake to think that everyone uses the internet the same way as people thinking that we all use our cell phones the same way.

+1. Mark.

On 6/2/21 23:27, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:

Agree Mark, we are lighting fiber into EADC Nairobi as we speak.

There's been a bit of glass in Nairobi for some time now :-). But sure, the more, the merrier. Mark.

While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber water and power to every human remains. SMF28 has shown to be the only physical safe bet over half a century now, and I feel like we owe our customers a future. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ

On May 31, 2021, at 7:53 AM, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 5/31/21 11:32, Baldur Norddahl wrote:

...

But why would the goal be fiber to every household? There are other ways to deliver good internet. In fact all of the major platforms can do so: fiber, coax, DSL, fixed wireless, 4G / 5G. The fiber platform will do so naturally, the others may require some extra investment but are still options.

I think the goal to get fibre to all corners should be maintained. However, one has to remain practical and use the most appropriate alternative, if fibre is not feasible.

...

Of course there are developing countries where the goal is any internet at all. I hope that is not the case for US broadband.

I have often been surprised about the quality of the Internet in "developed" environments :-).

Mark.

I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second). Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has. Signed, someone deploying rural fiber. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:33 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 6/1/21 19:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:

...

While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber water and power to every human remains.

I am reasonably certain that every NANOG reader shares this goal.

Mark.

"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps. To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does power. If every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could easily hook up that guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of power/water in the Nevada desert. Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets fiber internet. Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for this topic, please.

Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.

In what instance? Power has cost assistance and water in most environments is pretty accessible. I'm not sure what you mean here. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:39 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote:

...

I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second). Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has.

Cost aside, I'm sure you'd want everyone to have fibre it was affordable.

Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.

Mark.

Oh I see where you're coming from. "No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone comes at a cost to everyone. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:11 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 6/2/21 15:53, Josh Luthman wrote:

"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps.

Nobody says we should offer free fibre.

There are markets that find mobile data unaffordable.

To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does power. If every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could easily hook up that guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of power/water in the Nevada desert. Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets fiber internet.

Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for this topic, please.

You now see why I don't live in the U.S. :-).

Seriously, in case it wasn't obvious, I don't live in the U.S., nor am I American. Translation, it probably is not harmful to compare this issue with non-U.S. markets, which was your argument.

In what instance? Power has cost assistance and water in most environments is pretty accessible. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Again, non-U.S. context.

There are many markets where folk have a mobile phones and some data, but no access to power or clean water. In others, bringing water or power to areas means bribing officials for years and still getting nothing. But they may be able to pick up some 3G :-).

Mark.

Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking. If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have this current situation where not everyone has fiber? To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies (AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink). Did you notice that two of them have filed bankruptcy recently? They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't deploy the services they were paid to do. USF is for phone. Not internet. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:39 AM Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:37 AM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

Oh I see where you're coming from.

"No such thing as a free lunch" is a phrase, basically stating nothing is ever actually free. In other words, making it affordable for everyone comes at a cost to everyone.

...

isn't much of the telecom (phone/internet) access in the US funded through some public funds already/anyway? (taxes, uniform service fees, etc) Why is this problematic?

CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 3:18 PM heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:

...

Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking.

If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have this current situation where not everyone has fiber?

To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies (AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink). Did you notice that two of them have filed bankruptcy recently? They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't deploy the services they were paid to do.

USF is for phone. Not internet.

I believe that is incorrect. afaik, 4 Internet connectivity programs have been created within the USF. iirc, that occured 7 - 10 years ago. I think CAF granted ~1.5T in its last phase.

All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be redirected to voip and internet.

A significant problem with USF grants is that grantees are not required to serve an entire FCC census tract (an area much smaller than a USPS zip code) when they accept a grant to service it. Meaning that if just a portion, the most convenient portion, of a census tract is serviced, the FCC is satisfied and then considers the entire tract served. Which is exactly what happened to my area, thanks FCC & Comcast - who also will not discuss extending it the ~.5 mile to reach me and neighbors.

I'd be delighted to have 25M symmetrical. What I can buy at consumer prices (~$55 MRC) is .8M/.8M DSL (MTR > 30 days for a few neighbors after the last storm). If I were located about 1.5 in any direction, I could buy 100M/100M or 1G/100M. No viable 4G or 5G options. There is Sprint fiber about 300 feet away, but I'm told it is voice only. There is Zayo fiber about .5 miles away, 100M for ~$1k MRC lit or ~$4k dark to the telco hotel, but it also has other challanges.

Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 03:25:01PM -0400, Josh Luthman:

CAF/RDOF *requires phone service*. The internet was a happy byproduct.

the way that i interpret it, it does not require phone service but does still offer grants for phone service. anyway, that is irrelevant. the point is that grants are offered for internet services infrastructure (and they are poorly managed).

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 7:14 PM Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

Do you not see the irony here? It's suggested the government comes in and delivers fiber to every house in the country and yet today we're saying they haven't gotten it right in the last ~20 years.

Isn't the request actually to better manage the process/results and not permit folk to act outside the interests of the citizenry?

Grants and federal funds are available. It's a massive amount of work to get them, at which point those with money find more profitable ways of doing things - like FTTH in a city with 100 subs/mile.

'we have always been at work with elbonia' isn't really the greatest answer. How could this be done better? If you were to re-think the process and be able to build a new process, how would you achieve the goal outlined in the proposed FCC direction/regulation?

" All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be redirected to voip and internet." Given that the government has been terrible at picking winner and losers, we're better off just shutting the whole thing down than expanding it. "grantees are not required to serve an entire FCC census tract" Most of the funding mechanisms have required recipients to serve any and all customers in the area they are funded for. You are right, though, in that process is used to determine eligible areas. The FCC is reforming that aspect as we speak. Needless to say, the big operators are fighting that tooth and nail. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "heasley" <heas@shrubbery.net> To: "Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2021 2:18:04 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 01:02:00PM -0400, Josh Luthman:

Phone is telecom. Internet is not telecom. Generally speaking.

If you think both of those services are US funded, why do you think we have this current situation where not everyone has fiber?

To answer your question, there is some assistance to those big companies (AT&T, Frontier, CenturyLink). Did you notice that two of them have filed bankruptcy recently? They also wrote letters apologizing they didn't deploy the services they were paid to do.

USF is for phone. Not internet.

I believe that is incorrect. afaik, 4 Internet connectivity programs have been created within the USF. iirc, that occured 7 - 10 years ago. I think CAF granted ~1.5T in its last phase. All support/subsidy for traditional dial-tone from the USF should be redirected to voip and internet. A significant problem with USF grants is that grantees are not required to serve an entire FCC census tract (an area much smaller than a USPS zip code) when they accept a grant to service it. Meaning that if just a portion, the most convenient portion, of a census tract is serviced, the FCC is satisfied and then considers the entire tract served. Which is exactly what happened to my area, thanks FCC & Comcast - who also will not discuss extending it the ~.5 mile to reach me and neighbors. I'd be delighted to have 25M symmetrical. What I can buy at consumer prices (~$55 MRC) is .8M/.8M DSL (MTR > 30 days for a few neighbors after the last storm). If I were located about 1.5 in any direction, I could buy 100M/100M or 1G/100M. No viable 4G or 5G options. There is Sprint fiber about 300 feet away, but I'm told it is voice only. There is Zayo fiber about .5 miles away, 100M for ~$1k MRC lit or ~$4k dark to the telco hotel, but it also has other challanges.

Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets fiber internet.

They both get fiber internet and chose where to live, so sure why not? Why are so many of us in the US so against something that can benefit everybody? Why must many of us feel that we have to be above others or benefit more than others based on arbitrary decisions. I’d bet rural communities would grow if solid internet was not even a concern anymore. I know family who live “in the city” (<6000 population) that need good internet and simply can’t get it even a couple of miles outside of town unless they live directly off the main two-lane highway in and out. Many of them are relying 100% on grandfathered unlimited 4G hotspots for all of their connectivity, and it’s a huge struggle. Where’s the nearest fiber for many of them? A mile away or less, and plenty of homes around them that would be connected up along the way. Sent from ProtonMail for iOS On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 8:53 AM, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

"If it was affordable" is a tricky statement. There's no such thing as a free lunch. If taxes/government/municipalities/etc are required to make it "affordable" that means all of the people are paying for it with extra steps.

To put it very simply, imagine the US does fiber the way it does power. If every single person throws in $10/mo every month we could easily hook up that guy that's 5 miles from the closest source of power/water in the Nevada desert. Is that fair to the guy in a 150+ person apartment building? One gets solitude and fiber internet, the other has to deal with neighbors and gets fiber internet.

Exclude the problems with government regulated power (or anything) for this topic, please.

...

Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.

In what instance? Power has cost assistance and water in most environments is pretty accessible. I'm not sure what you mean here.

Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:39 AM Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

...

On 6/2/21 15:26, Josh Luthman wrote:

...

I for one am not part of that goal (water for sure, power second). Not everyone needs fiber at the massive cost it has.

Cost aside, I'm sure you'd want everyone to have fibre it was affordable.

Heck, for many people, water and power are not cheaply available.

Mark.

Then honestly we should organize and do a better job. Imagine if all the carriers represented here worked together, combined builds, etc. We’ve finally got a few of the tier-1s playing ball with us, but it took 27 years. Anyone interested, reach out. We’re going under the SF bay in a $50m project for instance. First crossing in 20 years. Clears the SFPUC cable too. I want everyone onboard, I don’t care about the money (though I’m not irresponsible with it) I care about connecting the world. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On Jun 2, 2021, at 12:33 AM, Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:



...

On 6/1/21 19:37, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:

While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber water and power to every human remains.

I am reasonably certain that every NANOG reader shares this goal.

Mark.

On Fri, 28 May 2021, Mike Lyon wrote:

since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses for "minimums?"

I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, including only their "lifeline" customer service lines. Based on the CEOs experience, then we might have some data whether those products are viable for modern households, work-from-home, home-school, streaming. One of the problems with the product definitions: the "minimum" is treated as the "maximum" (up to speed). The actual bandwidth delivered is often much less than the advertised "up to" numbers. E.g. advertised 25 mbps /3 mbps => actual 7 mbps/768 kbps with data caps

So I’ll do this, on purpose. Here’s the result: We decided, oh, 28 years ago, not to offer an insulting service tier at all; all our services, even the most “entry level” are designed to make you feel not just special, but like you’re one of perhaps 6 billionaire customers we have and depend entirely upon. The entire framework of my company is built this way, from encrypted 10g enterprise and now residential connections, to access to c-levels for every customer. Scaling that will be a challenge, but it’s something I look forward to bringing to 8 billion people. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 28, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, including only their "lifeline" customer service lines.

Good point, but developments in QAM technology benefit both fiber and radio nowadays. Starlink will eventually be capable of 10gbit links through... essentially just carrier aggregation to a massive LEO cluster. That’s global 10gbit... I’m cautiously optimistic that we will see an incredibly bandwidth rich future, and I’m absolutely confident that humanity deserves one. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 29, 2021, at 7:54 AM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

We are all happy for you that your technology allows for that, really, we are.

For those that cannot get fiber, we’re still dependant on the physics of radio waves for last mile. And, hell, even for the middle miles!

-Mike

...

On May 29, 2021, at 07:47, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:

So I’ll do this, on purpose. Here’s the result:

We decided, oh, 28 years ago, not to offer an insulting service tier at all; all our services, even the most “entry level” are designed to make you feel not just special, but like you’re one of perhaps 6 billionaire customers we have and depend entirely upon. The entire framework of my company is built this way, from encrypted 10g enterprise and now residential connections, to access to c-levels for every customer. Scaling that will be a challenge, but it’s something I look forward to bringing to 8 billion people.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

...

...

On May 28, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, including only their "lifeline" customer service lines.

Also, LEOs still won't penetrate foliage. LEOs won't work in MDUs. LEOs won't work in varying terrain. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> To: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" <lb@6by7.net> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 10:55:53 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Starlink won't have a significant impact anywhere fixed services are a reasonable option. There's just not enough capacity available, even with 40k birds. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Mike Lyon" <mike.lyon@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 10:39:51 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Good point, but developments in QAM technology benefit both fiber and radio nowadays. Starlink will eventually be capable of 10gbit links through... essentially just carrier aggregation to a massive LEO cluster. That’s global 10gbit... I’m cautiously optimistic that we will see an incredibly bandwidth rich future, and I’m absolutely confident that humanity deserves one. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 29, 2021, at 7:54 AM, Mike Lyon <mike.lyon@gmail.com> wrote:

We are all happy for you that your technology allows for that, really, we are.

For those that cannot get fiber, we’re still dependant on the physics of radio waves for last mile. And, hell, even for the middle miles!

-Mike

...

On May 29, 2021, at 07:47, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE <lb@6by7.net> wrote:

So I’ll do this, on purpose. Here’s the result:

We decided, oh, 28 years ago, not to offer an insulting service tier at all; all our services, even the most “entry level” are designed to make you feel not just special, but like you’re one of perhaps 6 billionaire customers we have and depend entirely upon. The entire framework of my company is built this way, from encrypted 10g enterprise and now residential connections, to access to c-levels for every customer. Scaling that will be a challenge, but it’s something I look forward to bringing to 8 billion people.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

...

...

On May 28, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, including only their "lifeline" customer service lines.

I hope you understand that's not practical, or even wise. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 9:45:58 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections So I’ll do this, on purpose. Here’s the result: We decided, oh, 28 years ago, not to offer an insulting service tier at all; all our services, even the most “entry level” are designed to make you feel not just special, but like you’re one of perhaps 6 billionaire customers we have and depend entirely upon. The entire framework of my company is built this way, from encrypted 10g enterprise and now residential connections, to access to c-levels for every customer. Scaling that will be a challenge, but it’s something I look forward to bringing to 8 billion people. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 28, 2021, at 7:00 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I would love to see an experiment where the CEOs of the major communication companies were forced to use only their "lifeline" products for 30 days, including only their "lifeline" customer service lines.

I have seen a lot of questions about what is needed for video/eLearning/telehealth. IMO the beauty of those apps is that they use adaptive bitrate protocols and can work in a wide range of last mile environments – even quite acceptably via mobile network while you are in transit. In my experience most of the challenges people experience are due to home LAN (especially WiFi) issues, with working latency an underlying issue (aka latency under load). Some recent papers from NetForecast on video conferencing (https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5137-Videoconferencing_Int...) and eLearning (https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5141-eLearning-Bandwidth-R...) were based on observed actual usage rather than theoreticals. What caught my eye was their unique focus in the 1st paper in Figure 8 – laying out the rationale for a network “latency budget”. In essence, after 580 ms of delay someone will notice audio delay and feel the session is bad. A conference platform’s clients & servers may use up 300 ms of their own in processing, leaving about 280 ms for the network. If you working latency starts to exceed that on the LAN (not uncommon) then user QoE degrades. JL

That's not based in any kind of reality. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB@SherwoodOregon.gov> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 100/100 minimum for sure. In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps. We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed. I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe. On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less? Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to have access to broadband by 2025. Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals and to measure how we are progressing. All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G and fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might need upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The coax might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to invest to be able to claim broadband. On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my opinion. Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet and nothing is going to be done because it is broadband! Regards Baldur

Well, honestly, if you really want to go down the “need vs. want” road, 100 percent of the folks on this list would be out of a job. What are genuine needs? Food/water, clothing and shelter. That’s it. Even the last two are somewhat negotiable if you get right down to it. ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

On May 29, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

Need vs. want.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:49:01 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to have access to broadband by 2025.

Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals and to measure how we are progressing.

All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G and fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might need upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The coax might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to invest to be able to claim broadband.

On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my opinion. Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet and nothing is going to be done because it is broadband!

Regards

Baldur

Sean, I can send you tens (10s) of papers on research into QoE for streaming media; some of them form the basis of my own current research, i.e. I'm depending on their validity for my own work to be valid. At this moment in time, I'm unable to digest it for you as it's been a while since I read it. I can offer to: (a) (privately) send the above-mentioned collection of papers, (b) offer you a digest later this year, most likely around September, and (c) point out one core point, which is that there's a concept of "sustainable bandwidth" that's the determinant of good QoE. I concede that "sustainable bandwidth" needs explanation, which I can't accurately describe at the moment either. Let me know whether any of the above offers interests you. Cheers, Etienne On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 1:28 AM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job interview video calls, and network background application noise?

During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those students to fail exams unnecessarily.

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph was less than 1 mbps.

-- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew that. However, many of us here still get distracted by the bps. If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections) I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which didn't show up in simple average bps graphs. Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job interview video calls, and network background application noise? During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those students to fail exams unnecessarily. In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph was less than 1 mbps.

I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it points to an underlying problem. Sent from my iPad

On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

 I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband everyone can agree on. Is there a better way, sure, but how can you quantify it?

Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

...

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote: I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew that. However, many of us here still get distracted by the bps.

If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job interview video calls, and network background application noise?

During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those students to fail exams unnecessarily.

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph was less than 1 mbps.

If one installs smokeping on a raspberry pi using a wired ethernet interface to a home router, on a DOCSIS3 residential last mile segment, and copies over a well chosen targets file for things to test, and sets it to a 60s interval, all other settings at default... It's quite rare to find a network segment that isn't anywhere from 0.05 to 0.30% packet loss (or sometimes worse!) to its default gateway over a 24 hour period. Also very informative is when you see spikes in latency and jitter during evening peak usage hours. Lots of very basic test methodology can reveal the nature of oversubscribed contended access mediums. Last-mile 5 GHz band PtMP WISPs can see exactly the same issues on an overloaded AP. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:09 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko < nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:

It can't be zero. In 1000BaseT specs, BER, 1 in 1*10^10 bits error is considered acceptable on each link. So it should be defined same way, as acceptable BER. And until which point? How to measure? Same for bandwidth, port rate can be 1Gbit, ISP speedtest too, but most websites 100Kbit.

On 2021-05-31 21:28, Fred Baker wrote:

...

I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it points to an underlying problem.

Sent from my iPad

...

On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

 I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband everyone can agree on. Is there a better way, sure, but how can you quantify it?

Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew that. However, many of us here still get distracted by the bps.

If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

-------------------------

From: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job interview video calls, and network background application noise?

During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of

different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those students to fail exams unnecessarily.

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph was less than 1 mbps.

An interesting question would be to quantify and do statistical analysis on the following: Take a set of 1000 or more residential last mile broadband customers on an effectively more-than-they-can-use connection (symmetric 1Gbps active ethernet or similar). On a 60s interval, retrieve SNMP traffic stats from the interfaces towards the customers' demarcs, or directly from on premises CPEs. Store that data in influxdb or another lossless time series database for a multi month period. Anonymize the data so that no possible information about the identity/circuit ID/location of the customer can be identified. Perhaps other than "gigE customer somewhere in North America", representing a semi random choice of US/Canada domestic market residential broadband users. Provide that data set to persons who wish to analyze it to see how much/how bursty the traffic really is, night/day traffic patterns, remote work traffic patterns during office hours in certain time zones, etc. Additionally quantify what percentage of users move how much upstream data or come anywhere near maxing it out in brief bursts (people doing full disk offsite backups of 8TB HDDs to Backblaze, uploading 4K videos to youtube, etc). I at first thought of a concept of doing something similar but with netflow data on a per CPE basis, but that has a great deal more worrisome privacy and PII data implications than simply raw bps/s interface data. Presumably netflow (or data from Kentik, etc) for various CDN traffic and other per-AS downstream traffic headed to an aggregation router that serves exclusively a block of a few thousand downstream residential symmetric gigabit customers would not be a difficult task to sufficiently anonymize. On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 4:25 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements for IP congestion collapse. During the peering battles, some ISPs used to claim average bps measurements showed no problems. But in reality there were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job interview video calls, and network background application noise?

During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of different states. Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those students to fail exams unnecessarily.

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph was less than 1 mbps.

What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 4:25:35 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections In 2021 I would claim that 100 Mbps is where "good" internet starts. Yes, 25 Mbps will work but it is not good internet. Not to mention 2 Mbps ADSL which is almost the same as no internet. Now there are needs for an individual and there are needs for a community. The rural communities have a genuine need for good internet. Anything less will continue to accelerate the move of people to the cities. In the end, each individual decides for himself what his needs are and sufficient people want good internet, so that they will have that as part of their considerations when deciding to move. With poor internet the community will accumulate people that dont care about the internet, which often means elderly people. More elderly people means younger people do not feel at home, so they will move away or not move there, which further accelerates the effect. Regards, Baldur On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:19 PM Andy Ringsmuth < andy@andyring.com > wrote: Well, honestly, if you really want to go down the “need vs. want” road, 100 percent of the folks on this list would be out of a job. What are genuine needs? Food/water, clothing and shelter. That’s it. Even the last two are somewhat negotiable if you get right down to it. ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

On May 29, 2021, at 7:48 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:

Need vs. want.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 3:49:01 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I am in Europe / Denmark. The EU has defined broadband to be 100 Mbps download with nothing specified for upload. The goal is for everyone to have access to broadband by 2025.

Such definitions do help those in rural areas. In fact this is precisely useful for those that do not currently have access. It helps to make goals and to measure how we are progressing.

All current technologies can deliver broadband, including DSL, coax, 5G and fixed wireless. But maybe not without investment. That DSL plant might need upgrading to the latest VDSL and cabinets closer to the customer. The coax might need upgrades etc. But that is the point. Providers will need to invest to be able to claim broadband.

On the other hand a soft easy broadband definition is useless in my opinion. Then everyone has broadband, hurray, but many have slow internet and nothing is going to be done because it is broadband!

Regards

Baldur

The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Setting the bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more backhaul meet it only serves to limit the interest in fixing the problem correctly so Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50 bucks for few more years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants that are barely maintained as it is simply because established companies want to collect the gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to actually make anything better because it's better for their bottom line to keep everyone's expectations firmly in the 90s or even 80s. On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>:

...

What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur

...

On 5/30/21 8:32 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:

...

The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Are you able to share any numbers about costs per mile and/or subscriber? I'm sure a lot of people are curious how the co-op was able to run fiber to places

On Sun, 30 May 2021 15:56:52 -0500, Blake Dunlap said: that none of the usual suspects wanted to run coax to. (Of course, it probably helped that a co-op only has to care about eventually breaking even or at least not losing *too* much money, rather than making a profit in the relatively short term)

Yes please.  I'm in a location with fibre transits town but is only currently used for the school.  The incumbent doesn't feel like replacing the copper infra with fibre. I'd like to be able to present a decent install plan to the mayor and council for consideration. About 450 buildings.  Mostly residential. We've got a company here who knows how to do horizontal boring.  I'm wondering if they might be part of an effective plan.  I need to meet up with them at some point.

I agree that what is being subsidizes needs to be re-evaluated. USF is one of the largest slush funds we have. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Blake Dunlap" <ikiris@gmail.com> To: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 3:56:52 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Setting the bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more backhaul meet it only serves to limit the interest in fixing the problem correctly so Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50 bucks for few more years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants that are barely maintained as it is simply because established companies want to collect the gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to actually make anything better because it's better for their bottom line to keep everyone's expectations firmly in the 90s or even 80s. On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > wrote: søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net >: <blockquote> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care? That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less. The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. Regards Baldur <blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to increase home broadband speeds. I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. “People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). “When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not install fiber that could have been better spent? I will go so far as to directly ask: Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable home internet? ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is reckless without real, compelling evidence.

People want X. Why?

When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>: What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur

No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money. I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home. Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what they want. Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is a foolish venture. I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality. " Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it. I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do it. Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Ringsmuth" <andy@andyring.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to increase home broadband speeds. I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. “People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). “When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not install fiber that could have been better spent? I will go so far as to directly ask: Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable home internet? ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is reckless without real, compelling evidence.

People want X. Why?

When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>: What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur

I'd support that. Full transparency, but no requirements on anything broadband. Stiff penalties for lack of transparency. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Andy Ringsmuth" <andy@andyring.com>, "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 7:31:09 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Perhaps there should be some sort of harsher penalty for ILECs and other large near-monopoly last mile local carriers that outright lie on their form 477 data or take significant subsidy funds and then fail to build what they promised. Numerous states' attorney generals have gone after them on this matter to varied degrees of success. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:27 PM Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money. I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home. Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what they want. Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is a foolish venture. I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality. " Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it. I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do it. Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Andy Ringsmuth" < andy@andyring.com > To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to increase home broadband speeds. I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. “People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). “When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not install fiber that could have been better spent? I will go so far as to directly ask: Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable home internet? ---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote:

Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is reckless without real, compelling evidence.

People want X. Why?

When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" < baldur.norddahl@gmail.com > To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net >: What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur

So, I couldn't find a good email to reply to to add my 0.02... this seems as good as any. My general problem with each increase of the broadband standard in the US is that typically this is used as an excuse to start the whole 'subsidize companies to build out broadband' process over. Each time the number is increased, there is a new round of subsidies that are designed to build out broadband to those who aren't served. If someone has 10Mb/s service, and the standard is 25Mb/s, then amazingly all of those 10Mb/s homes you built out (often with the last set of subsidies) are now not serviced by broadband at all, and as such now qualify for new subsidies to build to 25Mb/s. Now if the number is increased to 100Mb/s then those homes you subsidized 25Mb/s to no longer qualify as served and you get more subsidies for building the same plant over and over. I know that in at least one case that the rural telephone company never builds beyond the broadband spec, even though there is fiber in the ground and it's just optics or worse, a software setting. I can only guess this is to ensure they get subsidies each time the number is raised. The bad side effect of this is that truly unserved homes never get service since the companies are always taking the subsidy for the low-hanging fruit, and rarely going after the most rural of areas. On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 6:31 PM Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com> wrote:

Perhaps there should be some sort of harsher penalty for ILECs and other large near-monopoly last mile local carriers that outright lie on their form 477 data or take significant subsidy funds and then fail to build what they promised. Numerous states' attorney generals have gone after them on this matter to varied degrees of success.

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:27 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money.

I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home.

Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what they want.

Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is a foolish venture.

I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality.

" Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it.

I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do it.

Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------ *From: *"Andy Ringsmuth" <andy@andyring.com> *To: *"NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to increase home broadband speeds.

I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong.

“People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours.

The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?).

Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead).

“When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not install fiber that could have been better spent?

I will go so far as to directly ask:

Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable home internet?

---- Andy Ringsmuth 5609 Harding Drive Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 (402) 304-0083 andy@andyring.com

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

...

On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is reckless without real, compelling evidence.

People want X. Why?

When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you need to have a good reason.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>: What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?

That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.

The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps.

Regards

Baldur

-- - Forrest

Thank you Baldur. I also operate an owned and designed FTTH network, as well as global carrier networks. If you look at this from first principles, glass fiber optical cable is cheap. PVC/HDPE seething is also cheap. Underground space is cheap. Construction, regulation, compliance, and financing are hard. The latter are all human-caused. There’s nothing fundamental here stopping us. So, we have a duty to proceed. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ

On Jun 1, 2021, at 2:40 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money.

I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home.

Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what they want.

Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is a foolish venture.

Since you also replied to some of my comments, I will say that I am the founder of a last mile FTTH provider in the greater Copenhagen, Denmark area with thousands of customers. All built for our own money with zero subsidies to customers that would pay good money to upgrade from DSL. I planned, designed and built everything from the network, the outdoor plant, the method we use to dig (directional drilling mostly), which pipes to use, what cable etc. Also marketing, sales and funds raising - in short: everything. We did this from nothing to a company with more than 100 employees today.

I claim to know the cost and complexity better than most.

I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality.

I could say the same. But maybe our reality differs. You seem to be very hung up on what minimums are needed to do a certain job. But that simply is not it. If a person believes his internet is slow, then it is slow, no matter what some experts think would be enough for that persons needs. That means he will buy my offering even though he probably already has VDSL with speeds faster than what you propose. It also means he will consider the available options when weighting pros and cons of a new home.

Here in Denmark we have a problem that people are moving away from rural areas and to the bigger cities. There are many reasons for this, but one often quoted reason is the lack of good internet.

Good internet in Denmark is 1000 Mbps for less than USD $50 per month. But I accept that 100 Mbps at a somewhat higher price point is probably a fine speed for rural US, where distances are huge and alternative solutions, such as fixed wireless, may need to be part of the solution. Or maybe Starlink is the solution.

Regards,

Baldur

I agree with Dan. In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) . As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb.  But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site backups or for friends/customers .... I don't know what I'd do without it !    And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV is long gone ...  I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house streaming 4K and nobody notices. I would never, ever, go back to DSL.  Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd still pay it. Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the minimum for 2021 should be 1/1.  Anything less than that is a bit silly and will soon be obsolete. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka <mrsyeltzin@gmail.com> wrote:

But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike.   Brandon's ISP can provide that service.

So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on population density, last mile tech, etc?

I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. 

Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits per second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move files I can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021.

Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be sustained throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. 

Dan

(end)

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

That's not based in any kind of reality.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB@SherwoodOregon.gov> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...  

Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

...

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less?

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

That doesn't really serve any value and 99.9999999999% of people would not pay any more than $50 for the ability, so your ability to execute such a system is limited. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Laura Smith" <n5d9xq3ti233xiyif2vp@protonmail.ch> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 4:43:50 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections I’m right there with you. I can download an entire Mac OS update in 6 minutes. It’s astonishing. I’d pay a grand a month for this. I’d pay five. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME FCC License KJ6FJJ On May 29, 2021, at 1:57 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: I agree with Dan. In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) . As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site backups or for friends/customers .... I don't know what I'd do without it ! And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV is long gone ... I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house streaming 4K and nobody notices. I would never, ever, go back to DSL. Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd still pay it. Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the minimum for 2021 should be 1/1. Anything less than that is a bit silly and will soon be obsolete. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka < mrsyeltzin@gmail.com > wrote: <blockquote> But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike. Brandon's ISP can provide that service. So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on population density, last mile tech, etc? I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits per second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move files I can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021. Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be sustained throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. Dan (end) On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> That's not based in any kind of reality. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB@SherwoodOregon.gov> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 100/100 minimum for sure. In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps. We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed. I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband -----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe. On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote: <blockquote> At least 100/100. We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could. At $50/month or less? Maximize number of households of all demographic groups. </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote>

Exactly <3 I’m not building today’s network… why would you build todays’ network? It’s obsolete in 24 hours. I’m building a network to out-last me… Are other people not doing this? The speed test in my signature is a residential connection, it’s real. I can do 7gigs to a laptop now. It’s astonishing. AR environments and heck, video games are already there…. How can it be that so many fine minds don’t see this? Does this create more opportunity for me, or just make my job of connecting the world; harder? Happy Tuesday all. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ

On May 31, 2021, at 4:47 AM, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:

Nobody needs more than 64k of RAM. On Sun 30 May 2021 at 14:28, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote:

...

That doesn't really serve any value and 99.9999999999% of people would not pay any more than $50 for the ability, so your ability to execute such a system is limited.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Laura Smith" <n5d9xq3ti233xiyif2vp@protonmail.ch> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 4:43:50 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I’m right there with you. I can download an entire Mac OS update in 6 minutes. It’s astonishing. I’d pay a grand a month for this. I’d pay five.

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME

FCC License KJ6FJJ

[cid][cid]

On May 29, 2021, at 1:57 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

I agree with Dan.

In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 49.95 per month (or 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) .

As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the latest patches from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large files for off-site backups or for friends/customers .... I don't know what I'd do without it !

And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when streaming 4K TV is long gone ... I can have multiple people in multiple rooms in my house streaming 4K and nobody notices.

I would never, ever, go back to DSL. Even if they hiked the price 5x, I'd still pay it.

Coming back to the original question on this thread, my answer would be the minimum for 2021 should be 1/1. Anything less than that is a bit silly and will soon be obsolete.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka <mrsyeltzin@gmail.com> wrote:

But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike. Brandon's ISP can provide that service.

So should there be a more granular definition of speeds mandated based on population density, last mile tech, etc?

I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth than you'd normally find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my ISP upgraded me to a 300/50 or thereabouts and it was a night and day difference in getting things done. Just like your example of average utilization being in the single megabits per second, my average utilization is near zero. But when I need to move files I can burst to speeds that aren't embarrassing in 2021.

Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It doesn't have to be sustained throughout the contract to be required. The only question is how feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible for larger players. Dan

(end)

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

That's not based in any kind of reality.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Brandon Price" <PriceB@SherwoodOregon.gov> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"... Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less?

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

-- Christian de Larrinaga https://firsthand.net <https://firsthand.net/>

It can be done, sure. Most consider it wasteful. Spending money on something you don't have any way of experiencing an improvement. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <lb@6by7.net> To: cdel@firsthand.net Cc: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:20:34 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Exactly <3 I’m not building today’s network… why would you build todays’ network? It’s obsolete in 24 hours. I’m building a network to out-last me… Are other people not doing this? The speed test in my signature is a residential connection, it’s real. I can do 7gigs to a laptop now. It’s astonishing. AR environments and heck, video games are already there…. How can it be that so many fine minds don’t see this? Does this create more opportunity for me, or just make my job of connecting the world; harder? Happy Tuesday all. -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME FCC License KJ6FJJ

I think it's hilarious when a governmental entity funded by the taxpayers thinks they have an answer to broadband. If you're collecting funds from customers, why do you need the City of Sherwood to support your network? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:22 PM Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov> wrote:

100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...

Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

...

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less?

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

Josh, A city can build a competitive service that is revenue neutral or even a source of income for the city without causing the earth to shift on its axis. Often, in fact, government is in a position to make large up-front capital investments in infrastructure that don’t have a fast enough pay-out to attract profit-oriented investors. Quite often, such cities are not subsidizing the network as you assume here. Most of these tend to be revenue neutral and pay back the capital investment over a ~15-20 year period. Some even end up contributing to the city over time. Frankly, I wish City of San Jose would do a Fiber to Everyone Layer-1 only competitive access fiber infrastructure project here. Owen

On May 31, 2021, at 10:57 , Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

I think it's hilarious when a governmental entity funded by the taxpayers thinks they have an answer to broadband. If you're collecting funds from customers, why do you need the City of Sherwood to support your network?

Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:22 PM Brandon Price <PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov <mailto:PriceB@sherwoodoregon.gov>> wrote: 100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower and hit the current definition's upload speed.

I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...

Brandon Price Senior Network Engineer City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-----Original Message----- From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org <mailto:sherwoodoregon.gov@nanog.org>> On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or know the content is safe.

On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:

...

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

At $50/month or less?

Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

100k buildings in the US alone, but no. Check back in q4 tho. Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ Sent from my iPhone via RFC1149.

On May 28, 2021, at 6:55 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

 Clearly not a residential mass-market service.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:30:48 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

At least 100/100.

We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start everyone at if I could.

—L.B.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO lb@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” FCC License KJ6FJJ

On May 27, 2021, at 5:29 PM, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year speed

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

FCC Definition of “broadband Internet” always lags behind the reality of actual user needs, by about a decade. Various sources show that Internet bandwidth consumption increases at about 29% CAGR. If you extrapolate from the previous increases and intervals of the FCC's changes, the definition of broadband should be a minimum of 100Mbit/100Mbit in 2021. When I hear incumbent providers insisting that 25/3 is still good enough, my answer is: "sure, I can agree with that, if you can do that PER DEVICE in the home." They don't like that argument. The only reason 25/3 is still the FCC definition is because of lobbying by those that are still limited by twisted pair copper infrastructure. On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:40 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just "almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or even 50 of upload.

100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to accomplish the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas.

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

...

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year speed

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

-- Jim Troutman, jamesltroutman@gmail.com Pronouns: he/him/his 207-514-5676 (cell)

Even among network operators, many people are disconnected from reality. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Luthman" <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> To: "Jim Troutman" <jamesltroutman@gmail.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:38:05 AM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections I'd like to see your data that backs up the statement that the broadband internet definition (of 25x3) lags behind actual user needs by a decade. Here are the TOP 4 residential users last month: up down total Fixed Wireless 25x4 93.628 3105.440 3199.068 Fixed wireless 25x4 290.000 2763.089 3053.089 Fiber 500 63.563 2063.782 2127.345 Fiber gig 24.752 1562.230 1586.982 Two wireless customers did MORE than two fiber customers. The wireless are on 25 meg and the fiber are on 500/1000 mbps plans. The top wireless subscriber is DOUBLE the download usage of the gig fiber house. The highest upload user was wireless, which happens to be FIVE TIMES the highest usage of the fiber customer. Here is an image comparing the top wireless and top fiber customer usage: https://postimg.cc/bZwc6PBx Please let me know what your data looks like, I would love to compare. Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:18 AM Jim Troutman < jamesltroutman@gmail.com > wrote: FCC Definition of “broadband Internet” always lags behind the reality of actual user needs, by about a decade. Various sources show that Internet bandwidth consumption increases at about 29% CAGR. If you extrapolate from the previous increases and intervals of the FCC's changes, the definition of broadband should be a minimum of 100Mbit/100Mbit in 2021. When I hear incumbent providers insisting that 25/3 is still good enough, my answer is: "sure, I can agree with that, if you can do that PER DEVICE in the home." They don't like that argument. The only reason 25/3 is still the FCC definition is because of lobbying by those that are still limited by twisted pair copper infrastructure. On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:40 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: <blockquote> I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just "almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or even 50 of upload. 100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to accomplish the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas. On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM Sean Donelan < sean@donelan.com > wrote: <blockquote> What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.? This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year year speed 1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds) 2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload) 2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up 2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless) 2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps) Not only in major cities, but also rural areas Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service. </blockquote> -- Jim Troutman, jamesltroutman@gmail.com Pronouns: he/him/his 207-514-5676 (cell) </blockquote>

I get about 23/6 Mbps for $50/month here in Silicon Valley from my ATT DSL line.

On May 27, 2021, at 18:11, Matt Brennan <brennanma@gmail.com> wrote:

 I'd love to see 100/100, but I don't see it happening anytime soon ... especially for $50.

I pay $150/month for 300/8 at home and that's the best upload I can get where I live ... in a major city.

...

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:41 PM Eric Dugas via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: I'm not in the US but in Canada it's been 50/10 since 2016 and we're just "almost" there yet. IMO the target should have been more like 100/30 or even 50 of upload.

100/100 might be a bit short sighted considering it'll take years to accomplish the necessary last-mile/distribution upgrades in rural areas.

...

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:31 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year speed

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

I second Mike. On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I don't think it needs to change.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM *Subject: *New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year  speed

1999  200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000  200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010   4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015   25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired)          5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021   ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

There are millions of people that have 0 mbps (or dialup, satellite, etc) and they can't function day to day like everyone else in town. Changing the definition of broadband to yet again, to a faster speed will do nothing for these people except slow the pace at which they get connectivity. Why do people "in town" need to go from 25/3 to 100/10 when we really should be focusing on the people with nothing? Changing the definition to 100/100 kills every technology except for fiber. Every single cable internet connection suddenly becomes "not internet". Do we really want another AT&T that ends up with all of the primary last mile technology to all the major cities again? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Chris Adams (IT) <Chris.Adams@ung.edu> wrote:

I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense?

Thanks,

Chris Adams

*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Jason Canady *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from *outside the University of North Georgia.* Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is fraudulent, please forward to spam@ung.edu <spam@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT Service Desk at 706-864-1922.

I second Mike.

On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I don't think it needs to change.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=>

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=>

------------------------------

*From: *"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> <sean@donelan.com> *To: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM *Subject: *New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year speed

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

While I agree, one thing to remember is the lack of any urgency to build out that infrastructure with the standards as low as they are in the last decade. It’s already not really being extended with haste, I doubt raising the definition will be the straw that breaks the camels back here. Seems to me that back has already been broken long ago. I do think sprawl builds should be a concerted, separate effort, but I don’t think it should hinder this change. There’s plenty of people NOT in BFE that are just an hour or two outside a major city with terrible service and this change could at least force the ISPs to do something about that. Would it cause them to abandon a large portion of their rural builds in the middle of nowhere? I severely doubt it, but I’d love to hear more. Sent from ProtonMail for iOS On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 11:01 AM, Tim Burke <tim@mid.net> wrote:

Totally agree with this. We should be focusing on those in rural areas that can’t get anything, rather than trying to get blazing fast speeds to everyone in the cities.

There are lots of areas here in Texas that can’t get anything other than low speed fixed wireless if they’re lucky or satellite… one of the major telcos (Frontier) has abandoned their DSLAMs in these areas, and it’s extremely cost prohibitive to build out fiber down rural FM roads just to get a couple of people 1gbps. Most of these people would kill to get a consistent 25/3.

V/r Tim

Sent from my iPhone

...

On May 28, 2021, at 8:36 AM, Josh Luthman <josh@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:

...

 There are millions of people that have 0 mbps (or dialup, satellite, etc) and they can't function day to day like everyone else in town.

Changing the definition of broadband to yet again, to a faster speed will do nothing for these people except slow the pace at which they get connectivity. Why do people "in town" need to go from 25/3 to 100/10 when we really should be focusing on the people with nothing?

Changing the definition to 100/100 kills every technology except for fiber. Every single cable internet connection suddenly becomes "not internet". Do we really want another AT&T that ends up with all of the primary last mile technology to all the major cities again?

Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:07 AM Chris Adams (IT) <Chris.Adams@ung.edu> wrote:

...

I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense?

Thanks,

Chris Adams

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Jason Canady Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the University of North Georgia. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is fraudulent, please forward to [spam@ung.edu](mailto:spam@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D) or contact the IT Service Desk at 706-864-1922.

I second Mike.

On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

...

I don't think it needs to change.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions [http://www.ics-il.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=)

Midwest-IX [http://www.midwest-ix.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=)

---------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Sean Donelan" [<sean@donelan.com>](mailto:sean@donelan.com) To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM Subject: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year

year speed

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than dialup/ISDN speeds)

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service providers had 128 kbps upload)

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must deliver better service.

What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed? Has our use of them changed? Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord cutting of non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP streaming services. However, video codecs have gotten more efficient so that what used to require an 8Mbps stream now fits in a 4Mbps package. I see more folks video conferencing (whether that be for personal or business use), which relies more heavily on upload than most applications. Folks with crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds have become the have-nots in this remote work era. The goal of subsidies is to lift the base/minimum so that there are fewer have-nots. Set the qualifier too low and you'll end up providing assistance where it doesn't accomplish this goal. Raise the qualifier too high too soon and you run the risk of excluding assistance where it could help. I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule of thumb I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4 people, 40Mbps download seems sufficient for today's typical usage (this assumes a 10:1 download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency needs to be quick enough for real-time voice or video calls to work smoothly. If the makeup of our homes change or the applications we use within the home change, I'm all for adjusting these figures. This still leaves DSL, cable, fiber, and various wireless technologies as options that would qualify for the definition of broadband. At some point, if one of these technologies cannot keep up with the pace of demand it will need to be excluded in favor of technologies that have done a better job of keeping pace. --B On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) wrote:

I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense?

Thanks,

**

Chris Adams

*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Jason Canady *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION:This email originated from /*outside the University of North Georgia.*/ Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is fraudulent, please forward to spam@ung.edu <mailto:spam@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT Service Desk at 706-864-1922.

I second Mike.

On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I don't think it needs to change.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=>

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From: *"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> <mailto:sean@donelan.com> *To: *nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM *Subject: *New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

Yes, the video doorbell and similar cameras are a great example of a product that barely existed a few years ago and are now common place (and one that is driving the need for change in the WiFi and broadband space). I agree that a 5:1 (down:up) ratio is better than a 10:1 (and that I do not recommend a 20:1 ratio for most folks). As someone that has a video doorbell (wired) and several wireless cams, I can tell you that my experience is that they worked fine on 50Mbps down/10Mbps up while two folks did WFH. Would my experience have been better with 25Mbps upload? Possibly. Would it have improved with 100Mbps instead of 25Mbps? Probably not. At another location I did WFH on a 30M/3M connection with no adverse affects (that would be minus the video doorbell, but with two WiFi cameras). I'm sure there were bottlenecks, but either the applications dealt with it intelligently or they shared the bandwidth well enough so that everything remained usable. On 5/28/2021 9:34 AM, Abhi Devireddy wrote:

I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration that is happening remotely.

Typical residential usage: Zoom group call: 2M upload OneDrive + Dropbox + Box + Other file sync services: ~ 1 - 5M Nest / Ring / Other constantly streaming camera = ~1M

If I'm working on a media file that's syncing real-time + on a zoom call, artifacts are impossible to avoid. Add to that 2+ users working remotely from the same home.

@Mike, Telehealth relies on a combination of HD video + accessories that stream AV + telemetry in real-time. In addition to bumping up the 4M upload, I agree with all the other comments on here about setting some parameters around latency and packet loss.

I think if anything, the proliferation of smart devices, requirements for higher reliability and the continuity of WFH practices are going to put additional demands on upload, not lower.

Abhi

------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+abhi=devireddy.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 9:02 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed? Has our use of them changed?

Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord cutting of non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP streaming services. However, video codecs have gotten more efficient so that what used to require an 8Mbps stream now fits in a 4Mbps package. I see more folks video conferencing (whether that be for personal or business use), which relies more heavily on upload than most applications. Folks with crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds have become the have-nots in this remote work era. The goal of subsidies is to lift the base/minimum so that there are fewer have-nots. Set the qualifier too low and you'll end up providing assistance where it doesn't accomplish this goal. Raise the qualifier too high too soon and you run the risk of excluding assistance where it could help.

I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule of thumb I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4 people, 40Mbps download seems sufficient for today's typical usage (this assumes a 10:1 download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency needs to be quick enough for real-time voice or video calls to work smoothly. If the makeup of our homes change or the applications we use within the home change, I'm all for adjusting these figures. This still leaves DSL, cable, fiber, and various wireless technologies as options that would qualify for the definition of broadband. At some point, if one of these technologies cannot keep up with the pace of demand it will need to be excluded in favor of technologies that have done a better job of keeping pace.

--B

On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) wrote:

...

I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to change the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense?

Thanks,

**

Chris Adams

*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu@nanog.org> <mailto:nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung.edu@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Jason Canady *Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM *To:* nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

CAUTION:This email originated from /*outside the University of North Georgia.*/ Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message is fraudulent, please forward to spam@ung.edu <mailto:spam@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT Service Desk at 706-864-1922.

I second Mike.

On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

I don't think it needs to change.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=>

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From: *"Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> <mailto:sean@donelan.com> *To: *nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM *Subject: *New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?

On 6/1/21 15:20, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

I'm not sure ratio is the right thing to focus upon - especially as asymmetry has grown the last few years due to the rising using of streaming video services and greater availability of 4K-resolution content. Ratio seems like more a reflection of current applications and usage patterns. (It would be fascinating to see a non-US FTTH provider that was 1G/1G or greater share their actual usage ratio.)

Symmetric services on GPON are usually mostly marketing, on the basis that even in 2021, most customers will have a higher download profile than an upload one. Selling 1Gbps/1Gbps bleeds the shelves faster than 1Gbps/5Mbps. Mark.

2.4 gbps down, 1.2 up. So yes, you could -----Original Message----- From: aaron1@gvtc.com Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:18pm To: "'Mark Tinka'" <mark@tinka.africa>, nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Yeah I thought gpon was 2.4 ghz down and 1.2 ghz up... so you could only honestly sell (1) 1 gbps symm service via that gpon interface correct? (without oversubscription) I think ng-pon(2), xgs-pon and other variants allow for much more. -Aaron

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone?

There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up. I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I don't think it's really ever been accurate. There are a bunch of examples in this thread of reasons why 'more than X' is a good thing for the end-user, and that average usage over time is a bad metric to use in the discussion. At the very least the ability to get around/out-of serialization delays and microburst behavior is beneficial to the end-user. Maybe the question that's not asked (but should be) is: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?"

On 6/1/21 11:33 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work.

And that might be the crux: 'just make it work'.

I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office… I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative. (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency. The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.) -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks> FCC License KJ6FJJ

On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

"Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?"

In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares.

"There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up."

On a 95th% basis, no, they don't use it.

On shorter time spans, sure. Does it really matter, though? If I can put a 100 meg file into Dropbox in under a second versus 10 seconds, does that really matter? If Netflix gets my form submission in 0.01 seconds instead of .1 seconds, does it matter?

I think you'll find few to argue against "faster is better." The argument is at what price? At what perceived benefit?

Show me an average end-user that can tell the difference between a 10 meg upload and a 1 gig upload, aside from media-heavy professionals or the one-time full backup of a phone, PC, etc. Okay, show me two of them, ten of them...

99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/>

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>

From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: aaron1@gvtc.com, "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:14:43 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone?

There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up. I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I don't think it's really ever been accurate.

There are a bunch of examples in this thread of reasons why 'more than X' is a good thing for the end-user, and that average usage over time is a bad metric to use in the discussion. At the very least the ability to get around/out-of serialization delays and microburst behavior is beneficial to the end-user.

Maybe the question that's not asked (but should be) is: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?"

What did they cry about? The speedtest.net result? Loading google.com in a fraction of a second? or was it that you didn't have 75 ms of garbage in the way? That you didn't go through a congested port between the PC and the destination? That you were hard wired instead of single-chain 802.11n WiFi going through 5 walls? That you were using a local recursive resolver DNS server? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <lb@6by7.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:40:15 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office… I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative. (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency. The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.) -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME FCC License KJ6FJJ

Same here. It is so annoying. ME: How are you testing the speed? Them: I am running the speedtest via my Apple Mac SE via an Ethernet AUI controller and i'm only getting 500kbps! The joys of running an ISP and dealing with the public.... -Mike On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:45 PM <aaron1@gvtc.com> wrote:

Yes, my customers “cry” about the speedtest.net result…. All day…

*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+aaron1=gvtc.com@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Mike Hammett *Sent:* Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:50 PM *To:* Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe <lb@6by7.net> *Cc:* NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What did they cry about?

The speedtest.net result?

Loading google.com in a fraction of a second?

or was it that you didn't have 75 ms of garbage in the way?

That you didn't go through a congested port between the PC and the destination?

That you were hard wired instead of single-chain 802.11n WiFi going through 5 walls?

That you were using a local recursive resolver DNS server?

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------

*From: *"Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <lb@6by7.net> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *"Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:40:15 PM *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office…

I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative. (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency. The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.)

-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO ben@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME <https://alexmhoulton.wixsite.com/6x7networks>

FCC License KJ6FJJ

-- Mike Lyon mike.lyon@gmail.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

On 6/1/21 19:40, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe wrote:

I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office…

I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative.  (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency.  The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.)

Bandwidth can be the responsibility of one company - your ISP. Latency involves co-operation with other operators, i.e., data centres and content folk. All the 100Gbps to your home or office is for naught if the content is 300ms away. Mark.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the maintenance of the infrastructure required to deliver those speeds exceeds what you'd get, IE: no return. What's wrong with right-sizing the infrastructure? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "james cutler" <james.cutler@consultant.com> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>, "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:13:36 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog@ics-il.net > wrote: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares. Of course, this is because the “industry” is driven short term profits and can not vision the eventual dispersion of remote workers begun in earnest about a year and which could result in longer term return on investment.

On 6/1/21 20:27, Chris Adams (IT) wrote:

This short term mindset is part of the problem.

Welcome to capitalism :-). Those quarterly earnings calls aren't just for the laugh, hehe... Mark.

Mike, I know you have a lot of experience in this. I have built several networks and owned ISPs, too. How is it really all that more expensive to offer higher Internet speeds? The cost of the Internet bits per subscriber ceased being a major consideration in most budgets about 10 years ago. Staffing, trucks, billing and rents cost far more. I’m way more upset about having to hire another FTE or buy a truck then having to add another transit or peering port. Oh, wait, if you are still using last century technology to deliver last the last mile, I can see the problem. You cannot get enough bits to the subscriber without a large investment to replace the last mile. Most customers WILL notice a difference between a 10mbit and 1Gig connection day to day. Your performance assumptions seem to be based on there is only ever being a single traffic flow over that connection, from a single endpoint. Typical subscriber usage isn’t anything remotely like that anymore. It is several to dozens of devices and usually every resident using bandwidth simultaneously when they are home. Plus all the background downloads of smartphone updates, massive content updates on all the game consoles, operating system updates, all those cloud backups, plus IoT devices like cameras with cloud DVRs. You may not like all these devices and we can debate their usefulness, but the fact is, consumers are buying them and using them, and when things don’t work well, the belief is “‘my ISP sucks”, even if that isn’t entirely true. My strongly held opinion is that fiber optic cable to the premises is the best and only long term viable technology for “Broadband”, with 30 years or more projected life span. Everyone who has grid tied electrical service should get to have fiber if they want it. I also believe that ISPs need to manage the customer’s WiFi most of the time, because it is a is huge part of the end-user’s quality of experience. WiFi 6E will go a long way towards reducing interference and channel congestion and making “auto channel” actually work, but will still be another 2-3 years before it is really common. Fiber optic networks operated in a competent way are always going to win compared to any other technology. It is just a matter of time. On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:34 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

"Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?"

In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares.

"There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up."

On a 95th% basis, no, they don't use it.

On shorter time spans, sure. Does it really matter, though? If I can put a 100 meg file into Dropbox in under a second versus 10 seconds, does that really matter? If Netflix gets my form submission in 0.01 seconds instead of .1 seconds, does it matter?

I think you'll find few to argue against "faster is better." The argument is at what price? At what perceived benefit?

Show me an average end-user that can tell the difference between a 10 meg upload and a 1 gig upload, aside from media-heavy professionals or the one-time full backup of a phone, PC, etc. Okay, show me two of them, ten of them...

99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work.

----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com

------------------------------ *From: *"Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> *To: *"Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> *Cc: *aaron1@gvtc.com, "nanog list" <nanog@nanog.org> *Sent: *Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:14:43 PM *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

...

That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone?

There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up. I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I don't think it's really ever been accurate.

There are a bunch of examples in this thread of reasons why 'more than X' is a good thing for the end-user, and that average usage over time is a bad metric to use in the discussion. At the very least the ability to get around/out-of serialization delays and microburst behavior is beneficial to the end-user.

Maybe the question that's not asked (but should be) is: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?"

-- Jim Troutman, jamesltroutman@gmail.com Pronouns: he/him/his 207-514-5676 (cell)

On 6/1/21 9:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:

For something "future-proof" you have to run fiber. Rural fiber would cost $5 - $10/ft. That's $26k - $52k per mile. Most rural roads around here have 2 - 3 houses per mile. I'm sure the more rural you go, the less you have. That's one hell of an install cost per home passed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless I missed something, back-of-a-napkin calculations say: on the low side: $26000 / 2.5 = $10400 $50/month charge to the rural customer gives $125 $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years. On the high side: 14 years. scott

Mike Hammett wrote:

For something "future-proof" you have to run fiber. Rural fiber would cost $5 - $10/ft. That's $26k - $52k per mile.

Most rural roads around here have 2 - 3 houses per mile. I'm sure the more rural you go, the less you have.

That's one hell of an install cost per home passed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From: *"scott" <surfer@mauigateway.com>

Unless I missed something, back-of-a-napkin calculations say:

on the low side:

$26000 / 2.5 = $10400

$50/month charge to the rural customer gives $125

$10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years.

On the high side: 14 years.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hammett wrote: On just the installation. You'd also need to factor in all of the other monthly costs in supporting that customer, including the cost of funds. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, charge them a bit more per month.  That's why I used a low figure like $50/month. scott

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... .

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... .

On Jun 2, 2021, at 01:33 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:

On 6/2/21 05:50, Haudy Kazemi via NANOG 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.

For average Jane, it would be as useful as the water company running you through the process of cleaning and treating the water that arrives at your tap (faucet, for the Americans).

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. Owen

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

There are plenty of places with crappy dsl left in the US, 7mbit down/1mbit up being fairly common in many small towns. In my view, however, focusing on dragging fiber to farmland is kind of silly and better wireless tech (WISP) to be preferred, and in both the wireless and dsl cases, a real source of problems is actually... wait for it... the buffering. I filed this in response to NTIA's recent RFC on this topic. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FjRo9MNnVOLh733SNPNyqaR1IFee7Q5qbMrmW1Pl... On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:58 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

-- I tried to build a better future, a few times: https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

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

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