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