Crap, slow internet options in the heart of Silicon Valley, I think.. https://www.broadbandmap.ca.gov
You can look around the billion dollar football stadium and international airport and see neighborhoods with 1-3Mbps only. On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:38 PM Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: > What is the embarrassment? > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >> >> I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the >> generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose". >> >> On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has >> a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near >> impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status. This makes competition >> pretty much impossible and makes the costs of operating one extraordinarily >> high. I'm obviously not going to be one that claims that government is >> good or bad, just pointing out a certain correlation which could >> potentially be causation. >> >> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but >> they are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The >> only other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. >> It's really an embarrassment. >> >> Mike >> >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>