> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote:
>
> Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone
> complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200
> meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better
> speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) for
> years.
>
> >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the
> >street have no option but slow DSL.
>
> Where is this example? Or is this strictly hypothetical?
There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon
valley alone.
> I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's what
> most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds. The only one that was
> close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't consider
> that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there now. I
> don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, but there's
> fiber there now.
Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. It’s
literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of
1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642
people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.).
Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at
3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi.
I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m sure
this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual data.
The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that utilities
tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban and sub-urban
parts of America…
1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments.
2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays,
Not areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family
dwellings.
3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently
and where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in
order to boost sales prices.
Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of broadband
improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans underserved.
Owen
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org
> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with even a
> passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States knows how
> hit or miss it can be. An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and
> the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL. Houses could have
> reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across the field has
> no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively high to get fiber,
> etc.
>
> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too. Of
> course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are
> continually being added and upgraded.
> Brandon Svec
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
> <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though.
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc
> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
> Can you provide examples?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG>
>
> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann Arbor,
> MI, so he had to start his own CLEC.
>
> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( Niagara
> and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who have the
> same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of Niagara
> Falls.
>
> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there is a
> long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct example as
> you asked for.
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com
> <mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> wrote:
> >There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse
> >off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
>
> Can you provide examples?
>
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org
> <mailto: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
>
