That is North Dakota, not population centers. Click the link. You're basing fiber availability everywhere on living? That's a poor excuse for data.
>These numbers are crap and nobody should believe them. Lol ok but we should believe nearly 100% from you because you lived in a couple places? >but this is a problem that is more political than technical. Strong disagreement here. What makes you say this? On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, 5:04 PM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > I said North Dakota, not population centers (they are where the legacy > LECs operate). I have lived and worked there for telecommunications Coops > which device the land mass of the state. They had no issues providing the > most cutting edge service to extremely rural areas. What is the excuse of > the larger LECs? There are many regional Coops and CLECs starting to build > out these population centers now. These numbers are crap and nobody should > believe them. > > I realize there are differences between rural and urban deployments, but > this is a problem that is more political than technical. In rural areas we > are more interested in getting things done, while in urban areas we appear > to be more interested in political wins. > > > On Feb 28, 2022, at 3:29 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: > > According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I > think the public 477 is 2 years? behind) What makes you believe it's > nearly 100%? > > https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> > wrote: > >> Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural >> areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH >> solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs? >> >> I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. >> >> On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> wrote: >> >> Ryan, >> >> This discussion was in regards to urban areas. >> >> Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural >> area based on your description. It looks like there are absolutely a >> massive amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless. Since it >> sounds like your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's >> probably why no wired solution has decided to build service there. At >> $50k/mile being a pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a >> viable business plan to you? >> >> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon <r...@u13.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>> >>> What is the embarrassment? >>> >>> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind >>> the times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada >>> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't >>> installed the NID. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar >>> enough. I am in Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA. >>> My best option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which >>> is 15/3mbit/s costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available). >>> >>> Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile >>> down the street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and >>> developer-built communities have almost zero options. >>> >>> Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense >>> connectivity in the world. Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from >>> Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity. >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >