What did they cry about? The speedtest.net result? Loading google.com in a fraction of a second? or was it that you didn't have 75 ms of garbage in the way? That you didn't go through a congested port between the PC and the destination? That you were hard wired instead of single-chain 802.11n WiFi going through 5 walls? That you were using a local recursive resolver DNS server?
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" <l...@6by7.net> To: "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net> Cc: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.li...@gmail.com>, "NANOG Operators' Group" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:40:15 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office… I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative. (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency. The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.) -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC CEO b...@6by7.net "The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.” ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME FCC License KJ6FJJ On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares. " There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up." On a 95th% basis, no, they don't use it. On shorter time spans, sure. Does it really matter, though? If I can put a 100 meg file into Dropbox in under a second versus 10 seconds, does that really matter? If Netflix gets my form submission in 0.01 seconds instead of .1 seconds, does it matter? I think you'll find few to argue against "faster is better." The argument is at what price? At what perceived benefit? Show me an average end-user that can tell the difference between a 10 meg upload and a 1 gig upload, aside from media-heavy professionals or the one-time full backup of a phone, PC, etc. Okay, show me two of them, ten of them... 99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" < morrowc.li...@gmail.com > To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > Cc: aar...@gvtc.com , "nanog list" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:14:43 PM Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: <blockquote> That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone? There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up. I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I don't think it's really ever been accurate. There are a bunch of examples in this thread of reasons why 'more than X' is a good thing for the end-user, and that average usage over time is a bad metric to use in the discussion. At the very least the ability to get around/out-of serialization delays and microburst behavior is beneficial to the end-user. Maybe the question that's not asked (but should be) is: "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" </blockquote>
