Do they help with a local government ("we do not need your cables, go avway")? 23.05.22 21:56, Sean Donelan пише:

Money, money, money.

On Mon, 23 May 2022, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

...

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

CAF nor RDOF required IPv6. BEAD doesn't say anything about IPv6. I seriously doubt v6 gets included into the conversation because even NANOG can't agree it is needed. The bigger concern are the people that have no connectivity at all (no 1 mbps, no 25/3, no 100/20, no gigabit, etc). On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 9:41 AM j k <jsklein@gmail.com> wrote:

With this funding, does the FCC require IPv6 and/or dual stack? If not, it could cause a new IPv6 digital divide.

Joe Klein

On Tue, May 24, 2022, 9:21 AM Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:

...

Do they help with a local government ("we do not need your cables, go avway")?

23.05.22 21:56, Sean Donelan пише:

...

Money, money, money.

On Mon, 23 May 2022, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

...

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro...

...

...

...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

On 5/24/2022 9:57 AM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:

If the government is going to fund anything at all anymore, it needs to be fiber all the way to the home which is built and managed in a way that any provider can use it.   This probably means a single strand from each home to some concentration point no more than 10km from the home and then a backbone/middle mile supporting several carriers from that point.   The position of this concentration point to be determined by the density in the area.

In an ideal world, yes, this is exactly how it would work although there would be some logistical issues. If you sit in these hearings the various government entities hold and listen to Charter's "Government Affairs Representative" then that is absolutely not true and coax is the wave of the future.

On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of bandwidth?

Mike

Thats almost the same question we were asked at BT a dozen years ago when moving from DSL -> FTTC when someone said, “but surely DSL is sufficient because its so much faster than dial.” —Tom

...

On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

...

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

What is changing in the next 5 years that could possibly require a household to need a gig? That is just ridiculous. On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 5/23/22 12:04 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

...

...

On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US

household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

...

...

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of

bandwidth?

...

Mike

Thats almost the same question we were asked at BT a dozen years ago when moving from DSL -> FTTC when someone said, “but surely DSL is sufficient because its so much faster than dial.”

The two of us survive just fine with 25Mbs even when we have a house full of friends. I mean it would be nice to have 100Mbs so that it's never a problem but the reality is that it just hasn't been a problem in practice. I mean how many 4k streams are running at the same time in the average household? What else besides game downloads are sucking up that much bandwidth all of the time?

Mike

...

—Tom

...

...

On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

...

...

...

...

...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek

comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro... throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

...

...

...

...

That is all obvious to me at least. I was just pointing out the folly in saying “what would one do with that much X” resource. We always have found a way going back to the beginning. My story about back at BT was prior to video streaming. At that point in time it didn’t exist and was made a reality in part, because of the simple increase in bandwidth available to subscribers (and everywhere else). —Tom

On May 23, 2022, at 3:53 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 5/23/22 12:29 PM, David Bass wrote:

...

What is changing in the next 5 years that could possibly require a household to need a gig? That is just ridiculous. I think the key thing is just to get fiber laid. Once that happens ISP's can turn up the dial relatively easy as needed. Also: even if they gave you a nominal rate of 1G it doesn't mean that they won't oversubcribe the headend and beyond.

Mike

...

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:

On 5/23/22 12:04 PM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:

...

...

On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com>> wrote:

On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of bandwidth?

Mike Thats almost the same question we were asked at BT a dozen years ago when moving from DSL -> FTTC when someone said, “but surely DSL is sufficient because its so much faster than dial.”

The two of us survive just fine with 25Mbs even when we have a house full of friends. I mean it would be nice to have 100Mbs so that it's never a problem but the reality is that it just hasn't been a problem in practice. I mean how many 4k streams are running at the same time in the average household? What else besides game downloads are sucking up that much bandwidth all of the time?

Mike

...

—Tom

...

...

On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

...

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro... <https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0>

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

On 5/23/22 3:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

Is it?

What’s the bandwidth of a good quality 4K stream? What about 4 of them + various additional interactive technologies, software downloads, media downloads, etc.?

Looking at the graphs, my household (which isn’t average by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a household) doesn’t need a gig very often, but there are the occasional multiple hours where my Gig downstream does flatline at about 950Mbps.

So I’d say that I make sufficiently frequent use of the gig that is available as to render it unlikely I would be satisfied with less bandwidth.

If you're going to use downloads as the benchmark, what about 10G or 40G as the baseline? I mean, that's an unwinnable treadmill. But from my reading about 25Mbs is just on the edge of being ok with 4k. Certainly 100Mbs would be fine for multiple streams. Mike

On 5/23/22 3:43 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

I think a gig is not an unreasonable target… It’s 100Mbps plus adequate headroom for the likely oversubscription models and the occasional downloads that are modern day reality.

Nobody is going to consistently use 1Gbps, but the difference in wire time for a large download between 100Mbps and 1Gbps is significant.

Making 1Gbps available in today’s network technology isn’t significantly harder nor is it any more expensive than making 100Mbps available when you consider oversubscribed bandwidth which is inherent in today’s residential models.

I’m not so unreasonable as to suggest dedicated gig CIR everywhere, but something close to 100Mbps CIR with 1G burstability isn’t an unreasonable target IMHO.

Anything over 1G gets more complicated and more expensive with available technology today, though that silly 2.5G stuff is not unlikely to gain traction in the residential aren in the near future.

10G or 40G are pretty absurd because the average residence can’t possible make realistic use of it… Most residences have a 1G bottle neck to the modem.

I agree that it probably doesn't change much for the ISP's (my rural ISP installing fiber apparently disagrees tho). The thing is that if you're talking about downloads, the game manufacturers will just fill to whatever available capacity the pipes will give so it probably won't ever get better. Maybe there a Next Big Thing that will be an even bigger bandwidth eater than video. But I get the bigger limitation these days for a lot of people is latency rather than bandwidth. That of course is harder to deal with. Mike

I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available download bandwidth. I think that games have gotten richer and the graphics environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a point where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of being shipped on multiple discs. When I was a rural DSL customer, my problem wasn't necessarily with the size of the games, but rather that you'd have to re-download the entire game every week. It would take almost an entire week to download a game, then by time it's finally updated they've updated a tree texture and you need to download the whole game again. I understand why this happens but customers who didn't have access to broadband just got the shaft. I still have a lot of friends who don't have access to broadband and simply can't play modern games because of the always-online requirement and constant, huge updates. If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense. If Fiber is being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for 1Gbps being more expensive than any lower capacity. The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of customers that subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them suddenly switched to a 1Gb service, would you expect an increase in overall bandwidth usage? I've been looking around for some other comments on bandwidth trends but I don't know how much of that would/should be confidential based on privacy or trade secret.

Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.). Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem

+1 IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + security/protection + WiFi LAN quality. Jason

Hello Jason & All , On Thu, 26 May 2022, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

...

Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.). Higher bandwidth won?t solve the latency problem

+1

You Mean something a little less than ... My traceroute [v0.94] replaceme (192.168.253.147) -> Snipped 2022-05-26T13:06:34-0800 Keys: Help Display mode Restart statistics Order of fields quit Packets Pings Host Loss% Snt Drop Rcv Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. ...Snip... 2. AS??? 192.168.251.1 0.0% 89 0 89 1.3 1.3 0.8 1.9 0.2 3. AS??? 10.5.5.227 1.1% 89 1 88 227.5 123.9 31.1 276.5 69.8 4. AS??? 10.5.5.185 2.2% 89 2 87 43.5 48.7 28.5 72.0 10.3 5. AS??? 10.5.21.241 1.1% 89 1 88 36.6 40.3 30.5 64.3 5.7 6. AS??? 10.128.88.234 2.2% 89 2 87 52.9 39.8 31.8 63.8 5.3 7. AS??? 10.128.128.125 10.1% 89 9 80 42.5 40.0 29.6 55.7 4.7 8. AS??? 10.128.118.217 72.7% 89 64 24 36.7 39.6 29.7 49.8 4.8 9. AS??? 10.128.0.166 31.5% 89 28 61 60.0 58.8 45.8 86.5 8.0 10. AS??? 10.128.0.170 85.2% 89 75 13 101.1 81.7 70.7 101.1 9.7 ...snip... Oh , Sorry you were talking about latncy not Packet loss . While I do understand that icmp responses ARE Low priority the above still gives some useful info . IMO Packet losses like the above are far worse than latency , But as far as an eyeball networks users experience makes absolutely no difference .

IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be

Speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

One more set of nit's , "security/protection" by who's standard should this be taken from , Eyeball users , Eyeball network Operators , His upstreams , US Gov , Nato , ... ? Where can each of those mentioned in the above have their input listened too & acted apon ? -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS | | Network & System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux | | jiml@system-techniques.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+

On May 26, 2022, at 9:31 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

...

Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.). Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem

+1 IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

This is always cute when posted from the haves vs the have-nots. I’m watching a lot of people who don’t want to take government money, or play along flail at all of this. They see the internet as for e-mail vs some futuristic use-case. A few realities: 1) material cost is overall small for a fiber network (Even with the 250% price increase in the past ~24 months in materials) 2) Labor is the killer (this also has inputs of diesel fuel costs as the trucks that move the stuff are all diesel) reflecting 80%+ of the direct hard costs 3) There’s a lot of variable soft costs in permitting, engineering (Drawings) and network design inputs. 4) Many electric utilities have poor quality poles and want to charge tenants to upgrade them when they’ve ignored them for decades 5) Several companies have zero incentive to improve the QOE of the end-user service Of course speed, latency, reliability matter. It’s possible to hit people with varying technologies, and when you stick to one, be it PON, HFC, xDSL + FTTx, the other inputs come into play, be it the spectrum reserved for RF overlay on PON and HFC or otherwise. You’re also seeing carriers walk away from new developments if they can’t be the monopoly option there, so it’s quite interesting watching what happens with my FTTH hat on. I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available if you’re willing to take it. It might mean taking the USF money and the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the programs work and have the right integration/reporting. - Jared

Yep. No one is forcing carriers to take USF money. They can essentially build whatever they want without USF money.

Unless of course USF funds are used to over build your already existing network. This is exactly the situation I'm in. On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:52 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

...

I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available if you’re willing to take it. It might mean taking the USF money and the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the programs work and have the right integration/reporting.

Yep. No one is forcing carriers to take USF money. They can essentially build whatever they want without USF money.

However, if they do take the USF money, what should be the absolute minimum delivery requirements? They can always build above the minimum.

Its essentially a reverse auction. If the government sets the requirements too high, the carriers claim they will walk away and the long-tail of broadband doesn't happen. If the government sets the requirements too low, the carriers take the money and build less.

The historical problem is carriers promise whatever it takes to win, take the money and don't deliver (or demand more money to finish).

That’s true of every large game I play these days as well. Obviously there may be game developers that remain stupid and I suggest that’s an issue to take up with them rather than an issue that is relevant to this debate. Owen

On May 31, 2022, at 08:06 , Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:

"However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 3.5” floppies at one point."

But you can still get incremental Windows Updates and don't have to redownload Windows any time something changes.

----- 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: "Owen DeLong via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> To: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:26:39 AM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

...

I agree that it probably doesn't change much for the ISP's (my rural ISP installing fiber apparently disagrees tho). The thing is that if you're talking about downloads, the game manufacturers will just fill to whatever available capacity the pipes will give so it probably won't ever get better.

I don’t think game manufacturers expand their games based on available download bandwidth. I think that games have gotten richer and the graphics environments and capabilities have improved and content more expansive to a point where yes, games are several BluRays worth of download now instead of being shipped on multiple discs.

However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 3.5” floppies at one point.

However, yes, a download will fill whatever bandwidth is available for as long as the download takes. If you’ve got 1Gpbs, the download will take significantly less time than if you have 100Mbps.

...

Maybe there a Next Big Thing that will be an even bigger bandwidth eater than video. But I get the bigger limitation these days for a lot of people is latency rather than bandwidth. That of course is harder to deal with.

Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).

Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem, but it does actually help some in that it reduces the duration of things other customers do to cause congestion which increases latency.

Owen

On May 23, 2022, at 15:59, james.cutler@consultant.com wrote:

On May 23, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

...

On 5/23/22 3:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:

...

Is it?

What’s the bandwidth of a good quality 4K stream? What about 4 of them + various additional interactive technologies, software downloads, media downloads, etc.?

Looking at the graphs, my household (which isn’t average by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a household) doesn’t need a gig very often, but there are the occasional multiple hours where my Gig downstream does flatline at about 950Mbps.

So I’d say that I make sufficiently frequent use of the gig that is available as to render it unlikely I would be satisfied with less bandwidth.

If you're going to use downloads as the benchmark, what about 10G or 40G as the baseline? I mean, that's an unwinnable treadmill.

But from my reading about 25Mbs is just on the edge of being ok with 4k. Certainly 100Mbs would be fine for multiple streams.

Mike

There is the other significant problem — using downloads as the benchmark. This ignores being the family “IT consultant” doing remote support. This ignores voip telephony, hosting Zoom meetings with friends and family, class reunions, show and tell, informal classes, and eventually, shared Virtual scenarios. If the FCC ignores upload speed parity and BufferBloat controls, the end result will probably not be favorable from the user viewpoint. And I haven’t yet mentioned virtual presence at the SpaceX launch control center.

Using anything as “THE” benchmark is absurd… I was suggesting that downloads are a contributing factor to the benchmarks that should be considered. Owen

On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of bandwidth?

Mike

Optimize their activities by remove a major delay factors from their activities. See The Human Use of Human Beings, a book by Norbert Wiener.

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> writes:

On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years.  Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of bandwidth?

I don't think this "need" is based on using up all the available bandwitdh, but about speed expectations. Customers want to download the same amount of data as before, only faster. Increasing the subscriber port bandwidth allows the ISP to oversubscribe their access network even more, so the cost doesn't necessarily increase much. You get faster downloads for "free". Customers will want that. Don't know how many of you on the wrong side of the pond followed RIPE84? There was an interesting talk there from Init7 in Switzerland on their experiences delivering 25 gig FTTH: https://ripe84.ripe.net/archives/video/797/ I noticed in particular the "Monthly volume won't change" on one of the slides.. Dealing with extreme syncronized peaks, like a popular game launch for example, will be harder with higher bandwidths. But we do have CDNs for efficient distribution of the same content to many ports. You'll just have to move those further out in the access network. Bjørn

On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 1:10 PM Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us> wrote:

On 5/23/22 12:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

...

On 5/23/22 11:49 AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:

...

The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more?

Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of bandwidth?

this seems like the wrong question to ask. Or at least a short-sighted question. One question to ask is: "If I have to upgrade from X to 1gbps for my infrastructure over the next 5 years, what's the outlay in capex/opex?" followed by: "What's my cost recovery plan now that I know what the bill will be?" Some of that might be USF, some might be fees from subscribers, etc. Being a gatekeeper to what folk can do at home seems ... not terrific, though.

I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But no, upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local cable

having symmetric speeds over 20mbps certainly is nice, as a user living in that world.

Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:49:13 PM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more? On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is enough for anybody.

somewhere around here i have saved the early '90s message (from a self-important person still on this list) saying africa will not need anything more than fidonet. whole new classes of use emerge when enabled. same as it ever was. randy

From a marketing point of view that pretty much sums up the

Maybe someone mentioned this in the current go-around but it seems we discussed this going back to when post-dialup became available, and before, regarding campus always-on links. There are different underlying business models possible with different bandwidths. The major split is whether you meter or not. For unmetered use there's a tendency to sell what you imagine the site needs and if they fill it all the time ok. For metered use you prefer to sell the site more bandwidth than they might need on average, maybe a lot more, and they can pay if they use a lot. And the ever-popular hybrid models, sell a big pipe which includes some unmetered use and only charge for overage. And of course the ever unpopular yet common sell a big pipe with some cap and tell them you might shape their connection on Sundays if the moon is full and there's an 'r' in the month (kind of like ride share pricing) tho probably no overage pricing, it just gets slow. Or maybe overage charges also if you're a quasi-monopoly -- if we got it we'll bill ya for using it, if not then you just won't get it. possibilities. All you can eat vs THAT'S ALL YOU CAN EAT! -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

On 6/1/22 1:55 PM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

...

...

Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is enough for anybody.

The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were a policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and applications, I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too long a timeframe) and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR could be derived from a sample across multiple networks or countries. In practice, that would mean looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US and DS and then projecting that growth rate into future years. So if you say 35% CAGR for both US and DS and project out the commonplace need/usage then 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as follows below. If some new apps emerge that start driving something like US at a higher CAGR then future years automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.

So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty much blew that away with video conferencing, etc. Mike

Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the CAGR will rise and get factored into future year projections.

You should recognize that Moore's law has ended. Masataka Ohta

Dave Taht wrote:

Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to think about...

Required resolution of pictures is bounded by resolution of our eyes, which is fixed. For TVs at homes, IMHO, baseband 2k should be enough, quality of which may be better than highly compressed 4k. Masataka Ohta

On 6/6/22 6:06 AM, Dave Taht wrote:

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:47 AM Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

...

Dave Taht wrote:

...

Looking back 10 years, I was saying the same things, only then I felt it was 25Mbit circa mike belshe's paper. So real bandwidth requirements only doubling every decade might be a new equation to think about... Required resolution of pictures is bounded by resolution of our eyes, which is fixed.

For TVs at homes, IMHO, baseband 2k should be enough, quality of which may be better than highly compressed 4k.

Masataka Ohta Yep. And despite our best efforts, nobody can hear the difference between 48khz/24 bit audio and 96khz/24 bit audio. The difference between 16 bit and 24 bit audio can be heard... but not so much on bluetooth earbuds! Attempts to make 10 channel audio more popular (like Atmos) appeal to a very narrow market.

Belshe's paper on "more bandwidth doesn't matter (much) from 2008: https://docs.google.com/a/chromium.org/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=Y2hyb21pdW0ub3JnfGRldnxneDoxMzcyOWI1N2I4YzI3NzE2

One thing to be said is that you could use more real estate instead of upping the resolution. like, having a jumbotron in your living room. will that be the next big thing? probably not, but it is a possibility Mike

For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.

One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not seconds.

To be honest, I don't know, I'm not a money person, I just turn knobs. But apparently it costs more than $130 billion dollars. In the US alone. That's what USAC has distributed to carriers in the US in the last 20 years. Last year was north of 8 billion. That's just USAC and that's just for getting high speed to rural areas, underserved communities, and Community anchor institutions. I don't know if that's too much or not enough, but it seems like a lot to me as a taxpayer when I consider how hard dozens of us had to fight to get ANY carrier to bring fiber to our community anchor institutions 6 or so years ago. But my point was only that if we keep arguing against change and against pushing barriers, then we are what customers (or members) say we are. obstinate, greedy, uncooperative, and unsupportive of their goals. I don't think you're any of those things, I just think we need to stop setting limits FOR customers and be open to a conversation about how to get to (insert wild and crazy, super cool goal here). All the time being as realistic as we can about how to do that. Sincerely, Casey Russell Network Engineer <http://www.kanren.net> 785-856-9809 2029 Becker Drive, Suite 282 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 XSEDE Campus Champion Certified Software Carpentry Instructor need support? <support@kanren.net> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:03 AM Jason Canady <jason@unlimitednet.us> wrote:

On 6/6/22 10:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:

...

For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.

One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not seconds.

At what price, is that worth though, Casey? Simply set the game to download overnight. It's better than standing in line outside of a store!

On 2022-06-06 11:32 a.m., Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:

But my point was only that if we keep arguing against change and against pushing barriers, then we are what customers (or members) say we are.  obstinate, greedy, uncooperative, and unsupportive of their goals.  I don't think you're any of those things, I just think we need to stop setting limits FOR customers and be open to a conversation about how to get to (insert wild and crazy, super cool goal here).  All the time being as realistic as we can about how to do that.

After years and years of being told why it's not feasible to build out infrastructure upgrades to provide internet service, once I started to work in the industry it was pretty shocking to see how customers are actually treated. It's tough to gather context from the replies but I feel like most of the industry still sees internet service as a luxury, and not something potentially life-changing. It seems like a lot of people are still missing the mark on how people actually use the bandwidth. The biggest complaints I hear are from people who are learning, teaching, or working remotely, that struggle to do basic tasks like move files back and forth from a corporate share. You can tell them to "just go to the office", but why should they? WFH has become such a life-changing thing for a lot of people, why not enable that kind of productivity? Then there's a growing industry of content creation; uploading to YouTube, live streaming, online gaming, online collaboration. All of that stuff is impossible without sufficient bandwidth, especially in the upstream. When I think about the WISPs that pop up to provide coverage to under-served areas and then just collecting the money from customers, with no plans to develop any infrastructure. Makes me think of that meme ... "I want internet" then being told "we have internet at home" but it's a 5/1 WISP connection with 600ms pings and 40% uptime. I don't think the regs need to mandate more speed, because of course MOST people will be totally satisfied with a basic connection, but I feel like providers have historically used that as an excuse to NOT provide a better service to customers that want or need it, where "good enough" just isn't good enough. K

If you want to argue that a bigger number is better, sure. However, regulatory definitions and funding has real meaning. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Casey Russell via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> To: "North American Network Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:56:17 AM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers For a long time now... I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications. One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not seconds.

Is it? I mean, as an industry, we already recognize that the average user downloads approx. 5 times more than they upload. In fact, we use it to bash users who want a synchronous speed... tell them that's unreasonable. I get your point, that if you try to use the outliers corner cases as your "measure", that's a problem. And I agree that game companies might get lazier in terms of efficiency and distribution methods. I'm just saying we need to be careful to have the conversations, and be open to them. We need to provide good, well-thought-out reasons, and justify our reluctance to hit "low profit" areas. Especially when we work in a sector that's being provided billions of dollars a year to do that very thing. Short quips like "Downloading is a really bad thing to use as a reason" overly simplify the (real) problems and needs down to insulting sound bytes when talking to the public. I realize you're talking to an in-group here, and might not have said the same publicly, so I'm not being overly critical, it's just an observation to clarify my own point Sincerely, Casey Russell Network Engineer <http://www.kanren.net> 785-856-9809 2029 Becker Drive, Suite 282 Lawrence, Kansas 66047 XSEDE Campus Champion Certified Software Carpentry Instructor need support? <support@kanren.net> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 6/6/22 7:56 AM, Casey Russell via NANOG wrote:

...

For a long time now...

I have had the opinion that we have reached the age of "peak bandwidth", that nearly nobody's 4 person home needs more than 50Mbit with good queue management. Certainly increasing upload speeds dramatically (and making static IP addressing and saner firewalling feasible) might shift some resources from the cloud, which I'd like (anyone using tailscale here?), but despite 8k video (which nobody can discern), it's really hard to use up > 50Mbit for more than a second or three with current applications.

One single digital game download to a console (xbox, playstation, etc.) can be over 80Gb of data. That's half of your Saturday just waiting to play a game. That assumes you'r'e getting the full 50Mbit (your provider isn't oversubscribing) to yourself in the home. It also assumes your console (and all the games on it) is fully updated when you fired it up to download that new game. Hope you didn't want a couple of new games (after Christmas or a birthday). I admit, it's not a daily activity, and it might not look like much in a monthly average. But I'd argue there are plenty of applications where 50Mbit equals HOURS of download wait for "average families" already today, not seconds.

And gig everywhere would just encourage them to make 8000GB downloads. Downloading is a really bad thing to use as a reason.

Mike

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:

I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on consoles. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>

is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases helpful to this discussion? (this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to interject) Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing. most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping: "Well, who needs that anyway?" or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum - in the form of: "Well who can even use 8k anyway?" or similar. -chris On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:45 PM Dorn Hetzel <dorn@hetzel.org> wrote:

Agreed, even with a 16TB drive, that's only 16000*8 ~= 128000 seconds of 1-gigabit download rate (under 36 hours) :)

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:

...

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:

...

I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on consoles. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 4:37 PM Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> wrote:

On 6/6/22 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:

...

is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases helpful to this discussion? (this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to interject)

Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing. most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping: "Well, who needs that anyway?"

One takeaway for me on this thread is that once you've installed fiber the difference in cost between 1G and 100M is not very big if at all. That makes a good case for just doing it for future proofing.

probably true, but also docsis seems perfectly happy to do 1gbps (or more, see atl comcast deployments of ~10 yrs ago?) I expect that because of design things in cable plants you need 'moar headends', but.... ok.

On 6/6/22 11:45 AM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:

Agreed, even with a 16TB drive, that's only 16000*8 ~= 128000 seconds of 1-gigabit download rate (under 36 hours) :)

This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine downloads filling to available capacity. Mike

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:26 PM Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net> wrote:

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said: > I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more > bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game > downloads.

I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on consoles. -- Chris Adams <cma@cmadams.net>

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:38 PM Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> wrote:

...

This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine downloads filling to available capacity.

...

Mike

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

"New Zealand is approximately 268,838 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 3,558% larger than New Zealand. Meanwhile, the population of New Zealand is ~4.9 million people (327.7 million more people live in United States)." To finish up the math here, how much did NZ's fiber buildout cost? -- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Dave Taht wrote:

"New Zealand is approximately 268,838 sq km, while United States is approximately 9,833,517 sq km, making United States 3,558% larger than New Zealand. Meanwhile, the population of New Zealand is ~4.9 million people (327.7 million more people live in United States)."

That NZ has less population density than US means the last mile problem is more severe in NZ than US, though actual severity depends on detailed population distribution. Masataka Ohta

* Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after the build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic? Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP I seem to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now its about 3Mb/s so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically when the bottlenecks went away. A great example of this is the lowest speed on the GPON network recently jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 across the board and as an ISP we barely noticed anything. Before this the two most popular speeds were the 100/20 and 1000/500 plans, 50% of users would order the 1000/500 plan, most without really knowing why but it was only about $20 different so why not. As an ISP the 1G users only used about 10%-20% more overall capacity than the 100/20 users.

Vanity is what most of this is about. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> To: "Tony Wicks" <tony@wicks.co.nz>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:13:25 PM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers On 6/6/22 4:08 PM, Tony Wicks wrote: * Do you have any stats on what the average usage was before and after the build out? I'd expect it to go up just because but was it dramatic? Well, Back in the FTTC days of ADSL/VDSL (very little cable) as an ISP I seem to remember the average home connection was about 1.2Mb/s. Now its about 3Mb/s so no, the usage itself does not jump dramatically when the bottlenecks went away. A great example of this is the lowest speed on the GPON network recently jumped from 100/20 to 300/100 across the board and as an ISP we barely noticed anything. Before this the two most popular speeds were the 100/20 and 1000/500 plans, 50% of users would order the 1000/500 plan, most without really knowing why but it was only about $20 different so why not. As an ISP the 1G users only used about 10%-20% more overall capacity than the 100/20 users. Excellent, so you're printing money catering to people's vanity :) Mike

On 6/6/22 4:27 PM, Jim Troutman wrote:

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I see about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about 10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero congestion in middle mile, transit or peering.

Can you tease out the cable cutters? That is, I would expect that you'll get more and more going forward until they are the vast majority. I guess I could look at my own router's stats too :) Mike

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:24 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

A related observation – years ago we gave cable modem bootfiles to a group of customers that had no rate shaping according to their subscription and compared that to existing customers (with an academic researcher). The experiment group did not know of the change, so it could not influence their behavior. We observed that peak demand generally hit a plateau that was well below available capacity & this was driven by existing applications & associated user behavior. There’s obviously a chicken-or-egg problem with capacity & apps to use that capacity, but most ISPs raise end user speeds at least annually and try to stay ahead of increases in peak demand.

I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download? My curve seems closer to a doubling of the average usage over 10 years. It would be really radical of me to start yelling "peak bandwidth" a la peak oil without more study... A very informal survey of those that had deployed higher rates on mikrotik stuff at WISPAMERICA had all 5 of the people rolling their eyes and saying avg downloads had gone from 2 to 3Mbit upon doubling or more their allocated bandwidth, and they had no congestive issues on their network peering. There was also a technical limitation in the mikrotik deployment in that they use very short queues by default (50 packets) for either the fifo or (the common) SFQ deployments. Shapers were universally used by this small group, and they were unaware of the sideffects of such short queues. I also took apart a recent ubnt 60Ghz radio's behaviors, and that was FQ'd and also with very short queues... and what looked like ack synthesis... with no options to change the configuration. I am thinking in part the lack of measured WISP "demand" for more bandwidth is in part due to overly short (as opposed to bufferbloated) queues! There's a really long thread over here with the mikrotik userbase going to town on fq_codel and cake: https://forum.mikrotik.com/viewtopic.php?p=937633#p925485

JL

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+jason_livingood=cable.comcast.com@nanog.org> on behalf of Jim Troutman <jamesltroutman@gmail.com> Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 19:29 To: Tony Wicks <tony@wicks.co.nz> Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I see about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about 10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling. Zero congestion in middle mile, transit or peering.

-- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Hi,

On Jun 7, 2022, at 8:54 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

...

I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There’s only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download? I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory changing.

I’m with Jason. If even a small percentage of the “representative use cases” that came out of the ITU’s Network 2030 Focus Group or other similar efforts comes to pass, bandwidth demand will continue to grow. Regards, -drc

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:55 AM Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood@comcast.com> wrote:

...

I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download?

I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory changing.

Dennard scaling ended in 2006. The US birthrate is negative. Wage growth is illusory. There are only 16 hours in a day where content can be consumed, and time on the internet is at an all time high.

JL

-- FQ World Domination pending: https://blog.cerowrt.org/post/state_of_fq_codel/ Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :

Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour?

Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes. Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55 minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes. Peace of mind is under-rated :)

What's the OneDrive rate limit?

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

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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tony Wicks" <tony@wicks.co.nz> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

...

This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine downloads filling to available capacity. Mike

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

Yes, human impatience and peace of mind do matter. But willingness to pay is not unlimited. There is an argument, presented in my paper "The volume and value of information," in the International Journal of Communication in 2012, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1570/740 that value is roughly logarithmic in volume (or speed). So going from 100 Mbps to 1 Gbps is like going from 8 to 9, whereas moving from 10 Kbps to 100 Kbps was like going from 4 to 5. Andrew On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, Denis Fondras wrote:

Le Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 08:12:07AM -0500, Mike Hammett a écrit :

...

Would it matter if it took 10 minutes or an hour?

Yes, it means the computer could be off for 50 minutes. Also everyone who had a connection reset when uploading a big file after 55 minutes understands why it is good if it only would take 10 minutes.

Peace of mind is under-rated :)

...

What's the OneDrive rate limit?

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

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

----- Original Message -----

From: "Tony Wicks" <tony@wicks.co.nz> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 5:36:13 PM Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

...

This whole thread is about hypothetical futures, so it's not hard to imagine downloads filling to available capacity. Mike

So, a good example of how this capacity is used, In New Zealand we have a pretty broad fibre network covering most of the population. My niece asked me to share my backup copy of her wedding photo’s/video’s the other day. I have a 4Gb/s / 4Gb/s XGSPON connection and she’s got a 1Gb/s / 500Mb/s GPON connection. I simply dropped a copy of the 5.1G directory into a one drive folder and shared it, 10 minutes later (one drive is still limited in how fast you can upload) she had it all and she was very happy. With these speeds its not even a consideration to think about capacity, everything just works.

How many times have I seen an installer only download the parts it needs vs just reinstall the next version right over top of the existing version? I know stuff like xplane seems to do a comparison of file signatures and only downloads the changed parts for the updates between whatever version I have and whatever version is current now, but I'd imagine a lot of installers these days just take advantage of the fact the user has a super fast connection and they don't have to care about shipping the entire new installer just to run an update. Not to mention whatever amounts of shovelware come with a few megabyte print driver for a modern printer/scanner/copier. Let's just include a copy of McAfee endpoint protection in this java update in case the user opts into selecting that as an option during install? etc. -Paul On 6/6/22 14:24, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> said:

...

I meant downloads as in gigantic games. If you give them more bandwidth it just encourages the game makes to build bigger game downloads. I don't buy that - users are still constrained on storage, especially on consoles.

"So what happens if the Next Big Thing..." I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We are sufficiently close to whatever is likely to come that it can come and bandwidths will have to catch up upon its launch. If we're not that close, then it's unrealistic to pre-build capacity for imaginary developments that never come. Napster came out in 1999. Broadband use in 2000 was 1%. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 5:04:58 PM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers On 6/1/22 1:55 PM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote:

...

...

Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is enough for anybody.

The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were a policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and applications, I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too long a timeframe) and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR could be derived from a sample across multiple networks or countries. In practice, that would mean looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US and DS and then projecting that growth rate into future years. So if you say 35% CAGR for both US and DS and project out the commonplace need/usage then 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as follows below. If some new apps emerge that start driving something like US at a higher CAGR then future years automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.

So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty much blew that away with video conferencing, etc. Mike

" I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything more than we have today." Few to none are doing that. Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about ourselves. That's too expensive. "totally fail to provide the same to everyone." Why should that be desirable? "If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps" Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough. "If you build it they will come." So then build the hypothetical content that needs this? Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it would work for most Americans. Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking downstream capacity in the regulatory world, they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change the regulatory environment over. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net> Cc: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com>, nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:31:13 AM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 08:06:50AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:

"So what happens if the Next Big Thing..."

I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything more than we have today. It's like why did we bother coming out of the trees, or the oceans even (yes Apple digital watches are a pretty neat idea). The non fibre installations we have today, while working for some, totally fail to provide the same to everyone. While fixing that globally should be a priority it should not be done in a manner that will require it all doing again in 10 years. Building in some headroom for growth makes sense, we're not talking lots it's only 10x ish to do gigabit ish, so within error margin.

I see this said a lot, but it doesn't really mean anything. We are sufficiently close to whatever is likely to come that it can come and bandwidths will have to catch up upon its launch.

If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps, but until then we face many decades trying to get that done. So if something comes up we may be stuck waiting. Stuff always comes up. When I started the BBC streaming we were told not to bother by ISPs, the quality was rubbish, the network couldn't handle it and never will. I did it anyway and the net grew but it was a long slow process with lots of screaming. It'd be nice to not have to wait so long next time because people want to deploy more legacy.

If we're not that close, then it's unrealistic to pre-build capacity for imaginary developments that never come.

If you build it they will come. People are more likely to invest in making things if they see a realistic timescale to deployment. If they also have to upgrade everyones home too they are less likely to bother. brandon

On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:

" I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything more than we have today."

Few to none are doing that.

I must have read different posts.

Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about ourselves. That's too expensive.

I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones.

"totally fail to provide the same to everyone."

Why should that be desirable?

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the good locations? A larger market is good for business, no? Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to the same resources others have.

"If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps"

Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough.

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying degrees. DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling. Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas (lots are installing FTTH now) Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in steps up. FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises. All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever.

"If you build it they will come."

So then build the hypothetical content that needs this?

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it provides.

Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it would work for most Americans.

That's really good then, problem solved.

Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking downstream capacity in the regulatory world

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the same for upload?

they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change the regulatory environment over.

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical? brandon

Happy customers are also good for business. K From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kord=firstnationscable.com@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: June 6, 2022 4:55 PM To: Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers "I must have read different posts." More likely, a lack of understanding. There's a difference between, "No one should have this" and "the government shouldn't be paying for people to have this at this time." "fortunate few who happen to be in the good locations" Most people live in locations where such a service could be reasonably delivered. "A larger market is good for business, no?" It is, but also good for business is not wasting money. "Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying degrees." Keep up with what? Want or need? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com _____ From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk <mailto:brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> > To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net <mailto:nanog@ics-il.net> > Cc: "Michael Thomas" <mike@mtcc.com <mailto:mike@mtcc.com> >, nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 11:27:54 AM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers On Mon Jun 06, 2022 at 09:44:20AM -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:

" I find it sad that so many would argue for never needing anything more than we have today."

Few to none are doing that.

I must have read different posts.

Upgrades are an organic part of the process. Some places they're hard, but most places they're comparatively easy. Let's stop putting the cart before the horse just to feel good about ourselves. That's too expensive.

I'm not clear what you're suggesting should not be done, I agree with you, upgrades are good, make them worthwhile ones.

"totally fail to provide the same to everyone."

Why should that be desirable?

I dunno, maybe it'd be nice if we could provide services to everyone not just the fortunate few who happen to be in the good locations? A larger market is good for business, no? Maybe the less fortunate would do better with access to the same resources others have.

"If we had moved to fibre everywhere then perhaps"

Negative. DOCSIS works well enough. Modern DSL implementations are good enough. Fixed wireless in many cases is good enough. Next gen satellite is good enough.

Not really. Those have been just about managing to keep up to varying degrees. DSL totally lost it as increasing speed reduced range, the UK ended up deploying around 90k street cabinets (and it's a small country) to handle the reduction from km's to 100m's and still failed on ancient cabling. Rural got left behind as the distance between premises is greater than the range of a cab. I've deployed FTTH over the last few years to people who were still on 0.5 - 1MB/s DSL, this was common in rural areas (lots are installing FTTH now) Satellite has always been a dissapointment, LEO may do better but is a huge investment so furthers my point that we do need to invest in steps up. FWA has always been a stop gap, largely limited by having to use shared spectrum here. On my FWA network the advent of 60GHz is great but for PTMP is too short range for our rural premises. All are lacking in upload speed, we found that out fairly quickly in the pandemic when there was a sudden change in use patterns from what people thought would be fine forever.

"If you build it they will come."

So then build the hypothetical content that needs this?

Have been. We were looking at turning off UK terrestrial broadcast in the late 2020s but fibre deployment was insufficient to provide equivalent coverage. That's changing, fibre is going in all over so we're looking at mid 2030s or so before we can start making proper use of IP only distribution and the extra capabilities it provides.

Gigabit download level service is available to enough (at least in the US) that if such a downstream heavy service were on our doorstep, it would work for most Americans.

That's really good then, problem solved.

Once people got tired of being proven that you need such forward-looking downstream capacity in the regulatory world

That's back to cart before horse, no? Did people not get the Gigabit due to such pressure? Why would it not be good to do the same for upload?

they just moved to upstream and cried wolf there too. Yes, many services do have mildly inadequate upstream, but certainly not anything to change the regulatory environment over.

Or moved on to the next problem. I think they are setting the goal too low if it's expected to accomodate a longer term change to home working. If your home is where you work, rest, and play why not symmetrical? brandon

</lurk> I will out an old member of list, not myself, he still runs Old Cisco (ASA managed, “fully”, might be debatable) firewall, capable of full duplex 100 Mbs, on -both- sides. 😃 (WHOA) His optic provider gave him a converter between the full optic GigE run into his house, and the 100 FD at the ASA. (It was a special deal, free installation and more reliable than the competitor) (Both were actually =true=, can you imagine ?) He runs a business in his basement that monitors several well known big services his business relies upon 24x7x365, for over 25 years. All interruptions are noticed (within reason) and monitored, logged and alarmed accordingly. He and his wife has raised 2 children through college, (one’s on his MBA), his retirement business.. -everyone- streams, there is no “cable” per se, he “cut the wire” when it was fashionable…. and their children would rather video chat than walk across the room, or go out somewhere. He adores telling me about how salespeople are *constantly* calling him to upgrade the service. “Why, we can fit 5GigE down to you now!” said the salesperson with garish clothes and floppy clown feet. “You just *can’t* live without it!” “thump-thump” goes those feet….. He always asks them for the packet loss ratio on the existing link….. the call sorta ends after that. FWIW, he always starts this story out with a snicker, and some latest and greatest gourmet drink..… :-P <lurk> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows From: Mike Hammett via NANOG<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2022 4:20 PM To: Aaron Wendel<mailto:aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron@wholesaleinternet.net> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:49:13 PM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more? On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-bro...

The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers currently receiving A-CAM support.

Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband. Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays. On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps service Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 2.5 nic or router, so now all of the major providers are rolling it out. Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing a 5Gbps service and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure marketing… I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we even get near the limits. It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso.. The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme. The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription . The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit. We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues. I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though. On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com<mailto:sean@donelan.com>> wrote: Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband. These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve. After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification] Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

I have two fixed wireless Internet connections here. One is 25/5, the other is 35/5. There is no cable, no fiber, no cellular, not even DSL from the phone company. That is reality in metro Denver, CO (actually, the foothills, 25 miles from the state Capitol building). Regarding Starlink, no, you can’t get it. I paid my deposit a year and a half ago and I am still on the waiting list. Every time that I get close to the date they promise, they change the promise. Maybe I will get Starlink service some time in the future, but, not any time soon. Oh, yeah, and 25 meg down costs $75 a month. If you want VoIP, that is another $20+. So not only is it slow, it is expensive too. So yes, there still is a problem, right here in America. And not just in the boonies. Mitch From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+mitch=mtanenbaum.us@nanog.org> On Behalf Of Matthew Huff Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM To: Brian Turnbow <b.turnbow@twt.it>; David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com>; Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers I grew up in rural Texas where my mother still lives. She has adequate speed internet, the biggest issue is reliability. The whole town (there is only 1 provider) has an outage for about an hour every week. Two weeks ago, there was no internet for 3 days. Cellular service is 4G and not even that reliable for data even on the best days. From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com@nanog.org <mailto:nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com@nanog.org> > On Behalf Of Brian Turnbow via NANOG Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:35 AM To: David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com <mailto:davidbass570@gmail.com> >; Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com <mailto:sean@donelan.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband. Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays. On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps service Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 2.5 nic or router, so now all of the major providers are rolling it out. Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing a 5Gbps service and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure marketing… I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we even get near the limits. It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso.. The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme. The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription . The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit. We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues. I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though. On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com <mailto:sean@donelan.com> > wrote: Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband. These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve. After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification] Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

Terrain has a lot to do with the service you can get. Twenty five miles west of Denver are technically foothills but it is a lot of mountainous terrain. No company wants to run any cable up there. --John On 5/24/22 09:48, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:

I have two fixed wireless Internet connections here.  One is 25/5, the other is 35/5.  There is no cable, no fiber, no cellular, not even DSL from the phone company.  That is reality in metro Denver, CO (actually, the foothills, 25 miles from the state Capitol building).

Regarding Starlink, no, you can’t get it.  I paid my deposit a year and a half ago and I am still on the waiting list.  Every time that I get close to the date they promise, they change the promise. Maybe I will get Starlink service some time in the future, but, not any time soon.

Oh, yeah, and 25 meg down costs $75 a month.  If you want VoIP, that is another $20+.

So not only is it slow, it is expensive too.

So yes, there still is a problem, right here in America.  And not just in the boonies.

Mitch

*From:*NANOG <nanog-bounces+mitch=mtanenbaum.us@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Matthew Huff *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:38 AM *To:* Brian Turnbow <b.turnbow@twt.it>; David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com>; Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

I grew up in rural Texas where my mother still lives. She has adequate speed internet, the biggest issue is reliability. The whole town (there is only 1 provider) has an outage for about an hour every week. Two weeks ago, there was no internet for 3 days. Cellular service is 4G and not even that reliable for data even on the best days.

*From:*NANOG <nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox.com@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of *Brian Turnbow via NANOG *Sent:* Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:35 AM *To:* David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com>; Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org *Subject:* RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband.

Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds

The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays.

On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps service

Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 2.5 nic or router,  so now all of the major providers are rolling it out.

Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing  a 5Gbps service and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure marketing…

I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we even get near the limits.

It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso..

The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all

Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme.

The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .

The other issue is the minimal upload speed.  It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer.  Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.

We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues.

I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time.  I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though.

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail.  Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism.  While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies.  [massive over-simplification]

Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

On 6/1/22 8:12 PM, Mitchell Tanenbaum via NANOG wrote:

Believe it or not, there is cable within 500 yards, but they won’t extend it. (:

50 feet across the street from me on the east side of the road is AT&T FTTH territory. My side of the street is not. F the west side apparently.

I wish (...) that public right of way agreements included a requirement that service providers must publish accurate service area maps, and must provide service (or pay a substantial penalty for each inaccurate service claim). In the old days (...) the "certificate of publice convenience and necessity" came with a duty to offer service to all in the area. That was part of the consideration to use the public right of ways. Now, even when you order service and obtain a confirmation, its not really a confirmation. Or ridiculous 'install fees', which are really go away fees. Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate service maps from carriers and service providers. Its like those wireless maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad agencies know their own maps are bogus. On Thu, 2 Jun 2022, Jared Mauch wrote:

...

50 feet across the street from me on the east side of the road is AT&T FTTH territory. My side of the street is not. F the west side apparently.

This is common sadly. I had fiber 1200' from my house that was unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible to happen. Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them but can't get service.

Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber providers that pass them and none offer service.

But, presumably, the carriers/providers do have the data. I've heard it suggested (Vint Cerf to broadband.money) that *any* public funding of ISPs should be contingent on them providing it to the regulators. joly On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 11:40 AM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate service maps from carriers and service providers. Its like those wireless maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad agencies know their own maps are bogus.

--

-------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

" Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme." Hence my earlier reference to the marketing machine. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Turnbow via NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> To: "David Bass" <davidbass570@gmail.com>, "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:35:09 AM Subject: RE: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband. Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays. On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps service Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 2.5 nic or router, so now all of the major providers are rolling it out. Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing a 5Gbps service and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines.. pure marketing… I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we even get near the limits. It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso.. The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme. The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription . The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit. We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues. I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though. On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan < sean@donelan.com > wrote: Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband. These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve. After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification] Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc... there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue. On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com> wrote:

The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .

The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.

We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues.

I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though.

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

...

Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification]

Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

-- Jeff Shultz -- Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!    <https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/>      <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/>      <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3>      <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos> _**** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****_

files. (Let's not talk about 16/1.5 ADSL, going even further back, that was time for a quick snooze...)

One doesn’t have to go back… In San Jose, CA, the best DSL available at my location is still 1.5M/384K on a good day. Add water (rain) and it drops to something more like 768K/128K. USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands. Owen

Sean Donelan wrote:

...

USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands.

Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.

That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly. Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional to their local market shares, which means only the provider with the largest share can survive. In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still possible. Still, providers relying on older technologies will be competitively replaced by other providers using newer technologies, which is why DSL providers have been disappearing and cable providers will disappear. In a long run, only fiber providers will survive. The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local competition even if fibers are unbundled, because, providers with smaller share can find smaller number of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually, fiber cost between the splitters and stations are same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS. But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where only one or two homes exist around PON splitters, in which case, SS is less costly. Masataka Ohta

On Jun 2, 2022, at 06:41 , Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

Sean Donelan wrote:

...

...

USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands. Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.

That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.

Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so. You seem somehow surprised by this. Most of us have grown quite accustomed to it. Owen

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home. On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@sctcweb.com> wrote:

I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc... there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .

The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.

We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues.

I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though.

On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

...

Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification]

Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

-- Jeff Shultz

Like us on Social Media for News, Promotions, and other information!!

<https://www.facebook.com/SCTCWEB/> [image: https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/] <https://www.instagram.com/sctc_sctc/> <https://www.yelp.com/biz/sctc-stayton-3> <https://www.youtube.com/c/sctcvideos>

**** This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ****

It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <owen@delong.com> said:

-=-=-=-=-=- Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

The laws of physics make it rather difficult to provide symmetrical speeds on shared media like coax or cellular radio. As wired networks move to all fiber they'll get more symmetrical but in the meantime I expect that Comcast, Spectrum, Cox, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are deeply troubled by your disapproval. R's, John

...

On May 29, 2022, at 14:10, Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke@gmail.com> wrote:

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home.

On Thu, 26 May 2022 at 16:59, Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz@sctcweb.com <mailto:jeffshultz@sctcweb.com>> wrote: I think we have a winner here - we don't necessarily need 1G down, but we do need to get the upload speeds up to symmetrical 50/50, 100/100 etc... there are enough people putting in HD security cameras and the like that upstream speeds are beginning to be an issue.

On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:37 AM David Bass <davidbass570@gmail.com <mailto:davidbass570@gmail.com>> wrote: The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .

The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit.

We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues.

I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person.

Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though.

On May 31, 2022, at 8:41 AM, Livingood, Jason via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:

All the large DOCSIS networks of which I am aware are in fact working on changing their spectrum plan and physical layer to enable higher US speeds and in some cases symmetric multi-gig services.

Yes, I’ve seen Comcast claim to offer 2G symmetric services in their applications for funding from state/local authorities to expand their networks to unserved or underserved areas. I have no reason to disbelieve this claim. I’ve been talking to vendors about what’s going on for the next generation of FTTx/PON and it looks quite attractive at this point, I’m excited to see the latency drops and speeds go up for people once they’re off DSL or DOCSIS over time. In my early days of research for my “hobby ISP” as I call it, I looked at getting older docsis systems as an option/alternative, and it seemed to be worthwhile as without a TV overlay, there were more options for speed. The reality is today once you have the infrastructure in place, if you planned well you can easily upgrade with overlays. - Jared

On May 23, 2022, at 17:20, Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed broadband.

Yes… Places like San Jose, California, a city of over 1 million people don’t get such protections… Nobody is looking out for or building for us.

These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve.

Sure, but if you’re going to require any form of bandwidth that becomes fiber-dependent, there’s no significant cost difference to delivering a gig.

After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification]

If the target is a non-fiber service, then 100/20 might make sense. If Fiber is being installed, then it’s hard to find a rationale for 1Gbps being more expensive than any lower capacity.

Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting.

Like virtually all telecom projects? Owen