I have a home in rural Washington state, and my access was definetly substandard. I had to bond together multiple internet services to have a somewhat modern internet experience. I now have a Starlink's service, which has given me more robust speeds. That said, their service still has a ways to go to ensure stable connectivity at all hours of the day. Their satellite coverage is currently still spotty.
Edward > On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > > >> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a >>> standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results >>> across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition. >> >> If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband >> connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the >> back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step. >> >> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the >> "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in >> rural America still have no or poor Internet access. >> >> Mark. > > ROFLMAO… > > People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know > at least have GPON or better. > > Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of > Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport to > be Gig down), but rarely delivers that. > > Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed > treatment no matter what we do. > > There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse > off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”. > > Owen >
