On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
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> 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> 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> 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> wrote:
>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in
America that are far worse off from a broadband
perspective than “rural America”.
Can you provide examples?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via
NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka
<mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> I disagree… If it could be forced into a
standardized format using a standardized
approach to data acquisition and reliable
comparable results across providers, it could
be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
>
> If we can't even agree on what "minimum
speed for U.S. broadband connections"
actually means, fat chance having a
"nutritional facts" at the back of the
"Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your
door step.
>
> I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just
saying that easily goes down the "what color
should we use for the bike shed" territory,
while people in rural America still have no
or poor Internet access.
>
> Mark.
ROFLMAO…
People in Rural America seem to be doing just
fine. Most of the ones I know at least have
GPON or better.
Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that
bills itself as “The Capital of Silicon
Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which
does finally purport to be Gig down), but
rarely delivers that.
Yes, anything involving the federal
government will get the full bike shed
treatment no matter what we do.
There are plenty of urban and suburban areas
in America that are far worse off from a
broadband perspective than “rural America”.
Owen