Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Raymond Burkholder]

On 5/31/21 7:14 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:


Yes, WFH (or e-learning) is much more likely to have simultaneous uses.

Yes, I agree that 3 megs is getting thin for three video streams. Not 
impossible, but definitely a lot more hairy. So then what about moving 
the upload definition to 5 megs? 10 megs? 20 megs? Why does it need to 
be 100 megs?


From a packet delivery mechanism, it comes down to things like:

* serialization delay
* buffering
* micro bursting
* high priority traffic delays

Back in the good 'ole days, we would QoS the heck out of traffic types 
to fit the traffic into limited size pipes.


On the home front, the skills aren't necessarily available for such 
finesse.  The alternate solution is to throw bandwidth at the problem. 
With 100 mpbs, it is less about filling the pipe, and more about 
serialization delay for the microbursts and reducing buffering.


Hence, the upstream ISP can over-subscribe the link quite nicely and 
typically not worry about full utilization (but for those who torrent 
their pipe full all the time).  But for the family with kids who need 
the elearning, and the parents WFH on video, trying to mix those various 
streams upstream can be problematic.


And then head office decides to push out microspft windows updates, or 
the kids computers download the latest 100G games, so download gets 
'fuller', and the return acks take up upstream bandwidth.


So the trick with high bandwidth pipes is that you reduce the amount of 
time the pipe is full.  High serialization rates.  High mixing rates. 
Low packet buffering.  High priority packets find it easier to get 
in/out with out having to apply QoS.


In other words, when you talk to network engineers, you'll hear them 
talk about elephant flows, acks, high priority, micro-bursts, ... each 
requiring slightly different traffic management requirements on low jto 
mid bandwidth connections.


When Cisco was first getting their ip telephony system working on their 
campus, they found that they were still loosing packets and having 
packet delivery problems, even with their high end 4500 and 6500 
switches in floor wiring closets.  Microburst and buffers.


Many of these problems fade away (don't disappear, just fade away), on 
high speed links.


So having repeatedly repeated myself multiple times, it isn't high speed 
links purely to saturate them all the time, it comes down to 
serialization delay and low buffers, and hot potato'ing the packets 
in/out as quick as possible, and letting the upstream ISP over-subscribe 
the whole system.  And hoping they don't choke the packets in their network.


Statistical multiplexing, yeah man!

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/1/21 02:19, Eric Kuhnke wrote:



d) may be using badly configured wifi things that stomp on each other, 
sometimes provided by the ISP


Many times provided by the ISP.

Between turning up new customers everyday, and fixing problems with 
pre-existing ones, ISP's tend to do the absolute minimum with the 
AP's/routers they supply.


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 6/1/21 01:54, Tim Burke wrote:

With that said, if there needs to be regulation on minimum broadband 
speeds, should there be regulation to require home ISPs to provide 
high-end 802.11ax-capable network gear, so the average clueless home 
user with a 1gbps FTTP connection can actually use the service they’re 
paying for?




I think having a half-decent home network goes beyond running the latest 
and greatest 802.11 standard.


I spend quite a bit of time helping folk fix up their home networks, and 
the things I see make me wonder how ISP's are still in business (mostly 
because the home networks are so badly strung, you can be guaranteed 
there is a phone call going to the ISP every hour).


Wireless meshing and/or wireless boosters have only compounded the 
problem. The general approach is to spend as little as possible for the 
home network, and expect the AP/router to work from the day you had ADSL 
to the day you get Gig-E FTTH, including after you add more walls, doors 
and beams during your lockdown renovation hobbies.


I agree that sufficient attention needs to be paid toward the home 
network. But simply throwing an 802.11ax AP/router at the site does not 
guarantee success.


Mark.

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/31/21 19:44, Adam Thompson wrote:

But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if you can afford it.


If you don't need a full BGP table, sure :-).

Mark.

Re: QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT

[George Michaelson]

the 5tuple includes protocol so increased adoption of QUIC alongside
TCP bound services effectively does increase the potential size of the
NAT binding table but if we're really a single-browser model and all
going to QUIC enabled webs, the effective outcome is to burn the port
space in UDP, not in TCP. its same-same if everyone jumps ship.

On the plus side, QUIC is a session: it multiplexes. So for a given
endpoint, there might only be one long-held QUIC binding. Sure, TCP
HTTPS in principle did this, but most of the code appeared to open
multiple simultaneous TCP connections. I am less sure this is
happening with the QUIC stack as presented. Maybe somebody smarter can
say.

the real problem is not the port count, its the amount of buffer space
the tiny chip has set aside, to hold "open" bindings in. We're
revisiting 1980s kernels and the TCB and ways to flush it, at this
point. By now, manufacturers should be making home routers out of
devices which have more memory purely for connection holding, than
prior devices had overall to boot a kernel in. But, consumers hold on
to WRT54G forever.

(I'm old. this may be a bad take on history, and current technology)

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:52 PM John Levine  wrote:
>
> It appears that Robert Brockway  said:
> >Does the existence of Connection IDs separate from IP mean that
> >the host/IP contention ratio in CGNAT can be higher?  IE, can a single
> >CGNAT device provide Internet access for a greater number of end-users?
>
> No, QUIC runs over UDP which runs over IP.  QUIC replaces the TCP sessions 
> that a web
> browser uses but the device is still doing all of the other IP stuff that it 
> does.
>
> I could imagine that the connection ID might slightly increase the load on a 
> NAT since a device
> might be hopping back and forth between networks, e.g. mobile and wifi, and 
> be considered a new NAT
> client each time it does.
>

Re: QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT

[John Levine]

It appears that Robert Brockway  said:
>Does the existence of Connection IDs separate from IP mean that 
>the host/IP contention ratio in CGNAT can be higher?  IE, can a single 
>CGNAT device provide Internet access for a greater number of end-users?

No, QUIC runs over UDP which runs over IP.  QUIC replaces the TCP sessions that 
a web
browser uses but the device is still doing all of the other IP stuff that it 
does.

I could imagine that the connection ID might slightly increase the load on a 
NAT since a device
might be hopping back and forth between networks, e.g. mobile and wifi, and be 
considered a new NAT
client each time it does.

QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT

[Robert Brockway]

QUIC has Connection IDs independent from IP.  This was done to 
make it easier to move from one IP network to another while keeping 
connections active, as most here will know.


Does the existence of Connection IDs separate from IP mean that 
the host/IP contention ratio in CGNAT can be higher?  IE, can a single 
CGNAT device provide Internet access for a greater number of end-users?


And if so, does this reduce demand on IPv4 resources?

It's ok, I'm wearing a fire-resistant suit with self-contained breathing 
apparatus as I type this.


Rob

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

I hit enter by mistake. 


Also, stiff penalties, including being forbidden from taking any future 
government funding by missing deadlines. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Andy Ringsmuth" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 7:31:09 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



Perhaps there should be some sort of harsher penalty for ILECs and other large 
near-monopoly last mile local carriers that outright lie on their form 477 data 
or take significant subsidy funds and then fail to build what they promised. 
Numerous states' attorney generals have gone after them on this matter to 
varied degrees of success. 






On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:27 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building 
last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger 
percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last 
mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money. 

I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home. 




Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what 
they want. 


Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is 
a foolish venture. 








I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality. 


" Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the 
expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising 
the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you 
telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good 
enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it. 






I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will 
do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that 
screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't 
spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do 
it. 




Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



From: "Andy Ringsmuth" < a...@andyring.com > 
To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go 
out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely 
the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to 
increase home broadband speeds. 

I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. 

“People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. 
I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. 

The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases 
flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, 
for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full 
well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for 
IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would 
upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). 

Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. 

Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do 
it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to 
the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about 
smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys 
come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky 
about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband 
that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). 

“When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the 
Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many 
billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not 
install fiber that could have been better spent? 

I will go so far as to directly ask: 

Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable 
home internet? 

 
Andy Ringsmuth 
5609 Harding Drive 
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 
(402) 304-0083 
a...@andyring.com 

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863 

> On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 
> 
> Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is 
> reckless without 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

I'd support that. 


Full transparency, but no requirements on anything broadband. Stiff penalties 
for lack of transparency. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Eric Kuhnke"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Andy Ringsmuth" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 7:31:09 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 



Perhaps there should be some sort of harsher penalty for ILECs and other large 
near-monopoly last mile local carriers that outright lie on their form 477 data 
or take significant subsidy funds and then fail to build what they promised. 
Numerous states' attorney generals have gone after them on this matter to 
varied degrees of success. 






On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:27 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 




No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building 
last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger 
percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last 
mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money. 

I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home. 




Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what 
they want. 


Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is 
a foolish venture. 








I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality. 


" Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the 
expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising 
the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you 
telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good 
enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it. 






I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will 
do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that 
screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't 
spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do 
it. 




Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



From: "Andy Ringsmuth" < a...@andyring.com > 
To: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > 
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go 
out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely 
the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to 
increase home broadband speeds. 

I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. 

“People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. 
I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. 

The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases 
flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, 
for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full 
well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for 
IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would 
upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). 

Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. 

Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do 
it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to 
the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about 
smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys 
come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky 
about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband 
that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). 

“When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the 
Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many 
billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not 
install fiber that could have been better spent? 

I will go so far as to directly ask: 

Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable 
home internet? 

 
Andy Ringsmuth 
5609 Harding Drive 
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 
(402) 304-0083 
a...@andyring.com 

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863 

> On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 
> 
> Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is 
> reckless without real, compelling 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Agreed. My in-laws live in an area where there's so much wireless interference 
from neighbors that they can't even use the entirety of their 200/20 (or 
whatever it is) cable service. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Josh Luthman"  
To: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 12:54:37 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the 
indoor WiFi? Is it possible the router has so much interference from all of the 
neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz? What if that example had a cable 
connection with 960/40 mbps and they're limited to 5 mbps up because of the in 
house WiFi solution? 

Would upping the broadband plan to 1000/1000 fix that problem? 





Josh Luthman 
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 
Direct: 937-552-2343 
1100 Wayne St 
Suite 1337 
Troy, OH 45373 



On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:56 PM Chris Adams < c...@cmadams.net > wrote: 


Once upon a time, Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > said: 
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput. 
> 
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3? 

More than one person in a residence, home security systems (camera, 
doorbell, etc.) uploading continuously, and more. 

I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the 
last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were 
also schooling from home. Parents had to arrange work calls around 
their kids classroom time and around each other's work calls, because of 
limited bandwidth. 

The time of the Internet being a service largely for consumption of data 
is past. While school-from-home may be a passing thing as the pandemic 
wanes, it looks like work-from-home (at least part time) is not going to 
go away for a whole lot of people/companies. 

-- 
Chris Adams < c...@cmadams.net > 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

How many simultaneous telehealth calls can you be in at a time? In my close 
family (15 - 20 people), do you know how rare it is to have a medical 
appointment in the same week as someone else, much less the same exact time, 
much less the same exact time *and* in the same household? 


That's the difference between people speaking emotionally and people speaking 
rationally. Well sure, *everyone* has to care about healthcare, so let's throw 
healthcare on the list of OMG things. No one is helped by people trying to 
debate something's merit based on emotions. 






Yes, WFH (or e-learning) is much more likely to have simultaneous uses. 


Yes, I agree that 3 megs is getting thin for three video streams. Not 
impossible, but definitely a lot more hairy. So then what about moving the 
upload definition to 5 megs? 10 megs? 20 megs? Why does it need to be 100 megs? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "Abhi Devireddy" , nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 5:17:36 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







On May 28, 2021, at 06:56 , Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: 


"Bad connection" measures way more than throughput. 

What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3? 




Pretty much everything if you have, say, 3+ people in your house trying to do 
it at once… 


A decent Zoom call requires ~750Kbps of upstream bandwidth. When you get two 
kids doing remote school and mom and dad each doing $DAYJOB via 
teleconferences, 
that 3Mbps gets spread pretty thin, especially if you’ve got any other 
significant use 
of your upstream connection (e.g. kids posting to Tik Tok, etc.) 


Sure, for a single individual, 25/3 might be fine. For a household that has the 
industry 
standard 2.53 people, it might even still work, but barely. Much above that 
average 
and things degrade rapidly and not very gracefully. 


Owen 










- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Abhi Devireddy" < a...@devireddy.com > 
To: nanog@nanog.org , "Jason Canady" < ja...@unlimitednet.us > 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:34 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
talk with you. 


There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone who's 
got a bad connection. 

Abhi 



Abhi Devireddy 


From: NANOG < nanog-bounces+abhi=devireddy@nanog.org > on behalf of Jason 
Canady < ja...@unlimitednet.us > 
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM 
To: nanog@nanog.org < nanog@nanog.org > 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


I second Mike. 


On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 



I don't think it needs to change. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 



From: "Sean Donelan"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM 
Subject: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.? 


This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year 

year speed 

1999 200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than 
dialup/ISDN speeds) 

2000 200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service 
providers had 128 kbps upload) 

2010 4 mbps down / 1 mbps up 

2015 25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired) 
5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless) 

2021 ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps) 

Not only in major cities, but also rural areas 

Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't 
advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must 
deliver better service. 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Eric Kuhnke]

Perhaps there should be some sort of harsher penalty for ILECs and other
large near-monopoly last mile local carriers that outright lie on their
form 477 data or take significant subsidy funds and then fail to build what
they promised. Numerous states' attorney generals have gone after them on
this matter to varied degrees of success.



On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 5:27 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience
> building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that
> while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on
> this list build last mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money.
>
> I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home.
>
>
> Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building
> what they want.
>
> Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users
> expect is a foolish venture.
>
>
>
>
> I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality.
>
>
> " Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the
> expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against
> raising the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm
> against you telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that
> it's not good enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to
> "fix" it.
>
>
>
> I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and
> will do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same
> entities that screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially
> why they don't spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam
> to pay them to do it.
>
>
> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Andy Ringsmuth" 
> *To: *"NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM
> *Subject: *Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to
> go out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is
> precisely the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are
> making to increase home broadband speeds.
>
> I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong.
>
> “People want X. Why?”  - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I
> want. I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours.
>
> The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many
> cases flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and
> squandering it, for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you,
> Frontier) they knew full well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for
> service on one street and $80 for IDENTICAL service one block away.
> Promising to state governments they would upgrade and then not doing it
> (Charter in New York, anyone?).
>
> Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF.
>
> Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to
> do it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that
> fiber to the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost.
> We read about smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And
> then the Big Boys come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle
> competition (getting all snarky about pole access, or pouring billions into
> lobbying against muni broadband that could be spent on, oh, I dunno,
> INSTALLING FIBER instead).
>
> “When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars,
> you need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the
> reasons the Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their
> networks. How many billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to
> stop competition and not install fiber that could have been better spent?
>
> I will go so far as to directly ask:
>
> Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more
> reliable home internet?
>
> 
> Andy Ringsmuth
> 5609 Harding Drive
> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
> (402) 304-0083
> a...@andyring.com
>
> “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863
>
> > On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> >
> > Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing
> is reckless without real, compelling evidence.
> >
> > People want X. Why?
> >
> > When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars,
> you need to have a good reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >
> > From: "Baldur Norddahl" 
> > To: "NANOG" 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM
> > Subject: Re: New 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience building 
last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that while a larger 
percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on this list build last 
mile networks. Even fewer do so with their own money. 

I have a fiber network where I offer gigabit bidirectional to the home. 




Few people have any sort of grasp of the cost and complexity of building what 
they want. 


Raising the the minimal definitions for everyone to what power users expect is 
a foolish venture. 








I'm just trying to connect some of you to reality. 


" Doesn’t matter." Yes, it matters very much so when you're proposing the 
expenditure of my money to meet your unrealistic goals. I'm not against raising 
the definition. I'm not against offering 1G or 10G to the home. I'm against you 
telling people that are perfectly happy with their service that it's not good 
enough for them and then using their and my tax dollars to "fix" it. 






I don't disagree that the big ISPs have screwed the pooch many times and will 
do so in perpetuity. These programs often just give those same entities that 
screwed us all for years the money to do it. That's partially why they don't 
spend their own money doing it. They'll wait for Uncle Sam to pay them to do 
it. 




Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day. 






- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Andy Ringsmuth"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 9:17:17 AM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go 
out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely 
the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to 
increase home broadband speeds. 

I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong. 

“People want X. Why?” - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. 
I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours. 

The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases 
flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, 
for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full 
well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for 
IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would 
upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?). 

Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF. 

Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do 
it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to 
the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about 
smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys 
come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky 
about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband 
that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead). 

“When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the 
Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many 
billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not 
install fiber that could have been better spent? 

I will go so far as to directly ask: 

Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable 
home internet? 

 
Andy Ringsmuth 
5609 Harding Drive 
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831 
(402) 304-0083 
a...@andyring.com 

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863 

> On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is 
> reckless without real, compelling evidence. 
> 
> People want X. Why? 
> 
> When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
> need to have a good reason. 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
> To: "NANOG"  
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM 
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 
> 
> 
> 
> søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett : 
> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
> anyone care? 
> 
> That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and 
> therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that 
> someone believes these people could do with less. 
> 
> The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Eric Kuhnke]

I think it has been true for many years that:

a) a vast majority of residential gigabit/symmetric customers, or gigabit
asymmetric (docsis3 500-1000 down, 16-50 up) no longer have a device in
their home with a 1000BaseT port on it, or don't know if they do. in some
cases literally the only cat5e cable they have may be a 3' piece from their
cable modem to 'router', and everything else is wifi.

b) don't understand the difference between the service speed delivered via
the wireline connection and demarc/handoff device, whatever that may be,
and their perception of service over the wifi.

c) are unwilling to go through troubleshooting steps requiring them to
directly connect a device to the modem/demarc by 1000BaseT and run speed
tests, possibly necessitating a service call (this can be partially avoided
by the install technician doing a *wired* speed test in front of the
customer at the time of install, from their laptop, and taking a couple of
minutes to explain the difference)

d) may be using badly configured wifi things that stomp on each other,
sometimes provided by the ISP (I have seen set-top boxes from major MSOs
that broadcast a 2x2 MIMO 802.11ac 80 MHz wide channel, now imagine ten of
these all in wood framed houses/condos/townhouses all very close to each
other, in addition to the wifi from the demarc modem/router device). There
are lots of other things in the common consumer environment that render
some environments a CSMA mishmash, like smart TVs, printers and things that
all create their own AP for some reason.

e) may be using their own randomly purchased-from-best-buy wifi "range
extender" devices to create weird forms of mesh networks in their home,
further halving their bandwidth with each half duplex hop.





On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 4:54 PM Tim Burke  wrote:

> This is a good point as well… you can have the largest pipe in the world,
> but in many cases, in-home service issues are caused by crappy CPE.
>
>
>
> Example… my neighborhood has 1000/50 GPON (rather silly to offer such poor
> upload speed, but that’s irrelevant in this case) provided by a local
> outfit, Entouch (now Grande/RCN) as part of HOA dues… Many people in the
> neighborhood do not use it and blame the ISP for offering “mediocre
> service”, simply because there is no fancy CPE included as part of the
> service offering. Yet as soon as you swap that $25 Netgear router
> pre-installed by the home builder’s structured wiring contractor for
> something that’s worth a damn, the pipe is actually usable…
>
>
>
> With that said, if there needs to be regulation on minimum broadband
> speeds, should there be regulation to require home ISPs to provide high-end
> 802.11ax-capable network gear, so the average clueless home user with a
> 1gbps FTTP connection can actually use the service they’re paying for?
>
>
>
> V/r
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG  * On Behalf Of *Josh
> Luthman
> *Sent:* Monday, May 31, 2021 12:55 PM
> *To:* NANOG list 
> *Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
>
>
> Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the
> indoor WiFi?  Is it possible the router has so much interference from all
> of the neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz?  What if that example had a
> cable connection with 960/40 mbps and they're limited to 5 mbps up because
> of the in house WiFi solution?
>
> Would upping the broadband plan to 1000/1000 fix that problem?
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:56 PM Chris Adams  wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Mike Hammett  said:
> > "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
> >
> > What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?
>
> More than one person in a residence, home security systems (camera,
> doorbell, etc.) uploading continuously, and more.
>
> I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the
> last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were
> also schooling from home.  Parents had to arrange work calls around
> their kids classroom time and around each other's work calls, because of
> limited bandwidth.
>
> The time of the Internet being a service largely for consumption of data
> is past.  While school-from-home may be a passing thing as the pandemic
> wanes, it looks like work-from-home (at least part time) is not going to
> go away for a whole lot of people/companies.
>
> --
> Chris Adams 
>
>

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Tim Burke]

This is a good point as well… you can have the largest pipe in the world, but 
in many cases, in-home service issues are caused by crappy CPE.

Example… my neighborhood has 1000/50 GPON (rather silly to offer such poor 
upload speed, but that’s irrelevant in this case) provided by a local outfit, 
Entouch (now Grande/RCN) as part of HOA dues… Many people in the neighborhood 
do not use it and blame the ISP for offering “mediocre service”, simply because 
there is no fancy CPE included as part of the service offering. Yet as soon as 
you swap that $25 Netgear router pre-installed by the home builder’s structured 
wiring contractor for something that’s worth a damn, the pipe is actually 
usable…

With that said, if there needs to be regulation on minimum broadband speeds, 
should there be regulation to require home ISPs to provide high-end 
802.11ax-capable network gear, so the average clueless home user with a 1gbps 
FTTP connection can actually use the service they’re paying for?

V/r
Tim

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Josh Luthman
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2021 12:55 PM
To: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the 
indoor WiFi?  Is it possible the router has so much interference from all of 
the neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz?  What if that example had a cable 
connection with 960/40 mbps and they're limited to 5 mbps up because of the in 
house WiFi solution?

Would upping the broadband plan to 1000/1000 fix that problem?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:56 PM Chris Adams 
mailto:c...@cmadams.net>> wrote:
Once upon a time, Mike Hammett mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> said:
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
>
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?

More than one person in a residence, home security systems (camera,
doorbell, etc.) uploading continuously, and more.

I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the
last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were
also schooling from home.  Parents had to arrange work calls around
their kids classroom time and around each other's work calls, because of
limited bandwidth.

The time of the Internet being a service largely for consumption of data
is past.  While school-from-home may be a passing thing as the pandemic
wanes, it looks like work-from-home (at least part time) is not going to
go away for a whole lot of people/companies.

--
Chris Adams mailto:c...@cmadams.net>>

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Colton Conor]

It's not 100 percent about cost, but cost is a big concern.

My minimum requirement is a box that has 4 10G ports, and supports G.8032.
MPLS / Segment routing would be nice, but not required.

So far, I have yet to find anything comparable to Ciena' 3924. It's got 4
10G SFP+, and then 4 1G SFP's. Hardware costs about $550 new, and their
mandatory base software plus the 10G licenses add about $400, bringing the
total cost to $950. Then, they have an optional MPLS / Segment Routing
advanced layer 3 feature set, costing at least another $200, bringing the
total cost to $1150.

Anyone know something close in pricing to compare to? Note this is general
Ciena pricing, nothing special.

Mikrotik has a couple of options below this $1000 price point, but that
would not work.





On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 4:03 PM Adam Thompson 
wrote:

> EXOS is a perfectly good OS that bears absolutely *no* resemblance to
> anything else you've ever used in your career.  If you start from scratch
> without training courses, you're looking at wasting 6 months (maybe more)
> just learning the OS well enough to figure out how to configure your
> desired deployment.  Then you get to the usual month or so of fine-tuning
> required that every product needs.
>
> Given how many companies will pay for training nowadays, it's a relevant
> concern IMHO.
>
> Now that I'm used to EXOS, I like it.  But I would never recommend an EXOS
> newbie start a project with a product that runs EXOS, without some
> jump-start training.  It really is/was that painful.  It's like giving a
> 100% Windows admin a UNIX box to get the new service running on, with no
> training.  (Or vice-versa.)
>
> NOTE: Extreme's goal (supposedly targeting 2021) was to ship one common
> hardware platform that could run any of their 3 OSes.  I don't know if
> they're achieved it, but generally speaking, for any EXOS box, there's
> two more products, one running the Nortel/Avaya OS and one IronWare
> (Foundry/Broadcom), both of which are fairly "normal".
>
> -Adam
>
> *Adam Thompson*
> Consultant, Infrastructure Services
> [image: 1593169877849]
> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive
> Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
> (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
> athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
> www.merlin.mb.ca
>
> --
> *From:* Colton Conor 
> *Sent:* May 31, 2021 15:30
> *To:* Adam Thompson 
> *Cc:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs
>
> Adam.
>
> When you say "Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts
> with "X") unless you're already familiar with EXOS!" Are you saying stay
> away from this line completely, or what do you mean by this statement. I
> have heard good things about Extreme for deploying service provider G.8032
> and MPLS functions.
>
> Yes, I was aware of https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ and
> have gone through pretty much every vendor looking at their solutions.
> Extreme for example is not listed at all, so I guess they didn't want to
> pay those fees! There are quite a few Chinese vendors we can't use.
>
>
> On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:44 PM Adam Thompson 
> wrote:
>
> Extreme has excellent MEF implementations.  I've never used their MPLS
> implementations, but it's definitely there on, I think, all their
> products.  I only have the X620 model in my network, which may or may not
> work for you.  Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts
> with "X") unless you're already familiar with EXOS!  I cannot emphasise
> this enough!
> Extreme's other product lines come from Nortel/Avaya and Broadcom
> heritage, and also have good MEF implementations (and more-or-less-sane
> OSes).  They have MPLS support, but again, no experience with it.
> I can't give much advice on pricing as I get both edu & gov discounts, but
> they are competitive with Arista and Cisco when we go to RFP.
>
> Also, Juniper's MX (and maybe PTX?) families support MEF if that's a hard
> requirement.  I know *some* but not all EX switches have had both MEF and
> MPLS, too.  Beware many EX models have pretty minimalist MPLS
> implementations (e.g. no VPLS).  Agreed on their pricing, though, which is
> why I don't have any .  But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if
> you can afford it.
>
> Lastly, have you seen https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ ?
>
> -Adam
>
> *Adam Thompson*
> Consultant, Infrastructure Services
> [image: 1593169877849]
> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive
> Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
> (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
> athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
> www.merlin.mb.ca
>
> --
> *From:* NANOG  on behalf
> of Colton Conor 
> *Sent:* May 26, 2021 11:39
> *To:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs
>
> For MPLS and MEF switches, I know Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia are commonly
> talked about on this list. However, I was wondering if anyone has
> evaluated other brands? We are not interested in looking at chinese based
> vendors, so ZTE and Huawei are not an option. Anyone else 

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Adam Thompson]

EXOS is a perfectly good OS that bears absolutely no resemblance to anything 
else you've ever used in your career.  If you start from scratch without 
training courses, you're looking at wasting 6 months (maybe more) just learning 
the OS well enough to figure out how to configure your desired deployment.  
Then you get to the usual month or so of fine-tuning required that every 
product needs.

Given how many companies will pay for training nowadays, it's a relevant 
concern IMHO.

Now that I'm used to EXOS, I like it.  But I would never recommend an EXOS 
newbie start a project with a product that runs EXOS, without some jump-start 
training.  It really is/was that painful.  It's like giving a 100% Windows 
admin a UNIX box to get the new service running on, with no training.  (Or 
vice-versa.)

NOTE: Extreme's goal (supposedly targeting 2021) was to ship one common 
hardware platform that could run any of their 3 OSes.  I don't know if they're 
achieved it, but generally speaking, for any EXOS box, there's two more 
products, one running the Nortel/Avaya OS and one IronWare (Foundry/Broadcom), 
both of which are fairly "normal".

-Adam

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[1593169877849]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
www.merlin.mb.ca


From: Colton Conor 
Sent: May 31, 2021 15:30
To: Adam Thompson 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

Adam.

When you say "Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts with 
"X") unless you're already familiar with EXOS!" Are you saying stay away from 
this line completely, or what do you mean by this statement. I have heard good 
things about Extreme for deploying service provider G.8032 and MPLS functions.

Yes, I was aware of https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ and have 
gone through pretty much every vendor looking at their solutions. Extreme for 
example is not listed at all, so I guess they didn't want to pay those fees! 
There are quite a few Chinese vendors we can't use.


On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:44 PM Adam Thompson 
mailto:athomp...@merlin.mb.ca>> wrote:
Extreme has excellent MEF implementations.  I've never used their MPLS 
implementations, but it's definitely there on, I think, all their products.  I 
only have the X620 model in my network, which may or may not work for you.  
Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts with "X") unless 
you're already familiar with EXOS!  I cannot emphasise this enough!
Extreme's other product lines come from Nortel/Avaya and Broadcom heritage, and 
also have good MEF implementations (and more-or-less-sane OSes).  They have 
MPLS support, but again, no experience with it.
I can't give much advice on pricing as I get both edu & gov discounts, but they 
are competitive with Arista and Cisco when we go to RFP.

Also, Juniper's MX (and maybe PTX?) families support MEF if that's a hard 
requirement.  I know some but not all EX switches have had both MEF and MPLS, 
too.  Beware many EX models have pretty minimalist MPLS implementations (e.g. 
no VPLS).  Agreed on their pricing, though, which is why I don't have any .  
But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if you can afford it.

Lastly, have you seen https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ ?

-Adam


Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[1593169877849]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
www.merlin.mb.ca


From: NANOG 
mailto:merlin.mb...@nanog.org>> 
on behalf of Colton Conor 
mailto:colton.co...@gmail.com>>
Sent: May 26, 2021 11:39
To: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

For MPLS and MEF switches, I know Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia are commonly talked 
about on this list. However, I was wondering if anyone has evaluated other 
brands? We are not interested in looking at chinese based vendors, so ZTE and 
Huawei are not an option. Anyone else worth looking into?

We have used Juniper's ACX line primarily, but there is a big gap in their 
product line. The ACX2200 has only two 10G ports. The next jump up from there 
is the ACX710 with 24 10G ports. They have nothing in between that has 4-12 10G 
ports. Not to mention, Juniper is very proud price wise. We are looking for 
cost efficient 10G NIDs with at least 4 10G ports on them and aggregation boxes 
with at least 12 10G ports on them with 25g/100G uplinks.

Ciena seems to have multiple options available with Segment Routing, MPLS, and 
streaming telemetry support. I am probably most interested in what Ciena has to 
offer. Has anyone deployed the 3000 or 5000 product line of Ciena? How does it 
compare to Juniper? The Ciena 3924 is sub $1000 for example, and has 4 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Eric Kuhnke]

Perhaps you may be unfamiliar with the business model of cities, counties
or local PUDs running the fiber last mile network (at OSI layer 1) and
providing ethernet transport/VLAN handoffs, installing the OLTs and ONTs,
and third party ISPs using that network to provide IP, support, billing and
over-the-top services riding on it. In some of these cases the PUD is also
the entity which operates the last mile electrical distribution network,
and can put fiber on their own poles, which greatly reduces costs and
speeds up deployment.

The customers of the half dozen PUDs in eastern WA which use this business
model are presently enjoying gigabit class residential access at around
$50-75/month and are very happy with it.





On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 10:58 AM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> I think it's hilarious when a governmental entity funded by the taxpayers
> thinks they have an answer to broadband.  If you're collecting funds from
> customers, why do you need the City of Sherwood to support your network?
>
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:22 PM Brandon Price 
> wrote:
>
>> 100/100 minimum for sure.
>>
>> In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45
>> and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.
>>
>> We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census
>> block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower
>> and hit the current definition's upload speed.
>>
>> I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...
>>
>>
>> Brandon Price
>> Senior Network Engineer
>> City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: NANOG  On
>> Behalf Of Sean Donelan
>> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
>> To: NANOG Operators' Group 
>> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>>
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or
>> know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
>> > At least 100/100.
>> >
>> > We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start
>> everyone at if I could.
>>
>>
>> At $50/month or less?
>>
>> Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.
>>
>>

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Colton Conor]

Adam.

When you say "Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts
with "X") unless you're already familiar with EXOS!" Are you saying stay
away from this line completely, or what do you mean by this statement. I
have heard good things about Extreme for deploying service provider G.8032
and MPLS functions.

Yes, I was aware of https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ and
have gone through pretty much every vendor looking at their solutions.
Extreme for example is not listed at all, so I guess they didn't want to
pay those fees! There are quite a few Chinese vendors we can't use.


On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:44 PM Adam Thompson 
wrote:

> Extreme has excellent MEF implementations.  I've never used their MPLS
> implementations, but it's definitely there on, I think, all their
> products.  I only have the X620 model in my network, which may or may not
> work for you.  Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts
> with "X") unless you're already familiar with EXOS!  I cannot emphasise
> this enough!
> Extreme's other product lines come from Nortel/Avaya and Broadcom
> heritage, and also have good MEF implementations (and more-or-less-sane
> OSes).  They have MPLS support, but again, no experience with it.
> I can't give much advice on pricing as I get both edu & gov discounts, but
> they are competitive with Arista and Cisco when we go to RFP.
>
> Also, Juniper's MX (and maybe PTX?) families support MEF if that's a hard
> requirement.  I know *some* but not all EX switches have had both MEF and
> MPLS, too.  Beware many EX models have pretty minimalist MPLS
> implementations (e.g. no VPLS).  Agreed on their pricing, though, which is
> why I don't have any .  But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if
> you can afford it.
>
> Lastly, have you seen https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ ?
>
> -Adam
>
> *Adam Thompson*
> Consultant, Infrastructure Services
> [image: 1593169877849]
> 100 - 135 Innovation Drive
> Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
> (204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
> athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
> www.merlin.mb.ca
>
> --
> *From:* NANOG  on behalf
> of Colton Conor 
> *Sent:* May 26, 2021 11:39
> *To:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs
>
> For MPLS and MEF switches, I know Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia are commonly
> talked about on this list. However, I was wondering if anyone has
> evaluated other brands? We are not interested in looking at chinese based
> vendors, so ZTE and Huawei are not an option. Anyone else worth looking
> into?
>
> We have used Juniper's ACX line primarily, but there is a big gap in their
> product line. The ACX2200 has only two 10G ports. The next jump up from
> there is the ACX710 with 24 10G ports. They have nothing in between that
> has 4-12 10G ports. Not to mention, Juniper is very proud price wise. We
> are looking for cost efficient 10G NIDs with at least 4 10G ports on them
> and aggregation boxes with at least 12 10G ports on them with 25g/100G
> uplinks.
>
> Ciena seems to have multiple options available with Segment Routing, MPLS,
> and streaming telemetry support. I am probably most interested in
> what Ciena has to offer. Has anyone deployed the 3000 or 5000 product line
> of Ciena? How does it compare to Juniper? The Ciena 3924 is sub $1000 for
> example, and has 4 10G ports on it.
>
> Adva has quite a few options as well, but I don't think their routing
> stack is as strong as Ciena's.
>
> Tejas was an unknown player to me, but they seem to have a couple of
> options that fit the bill. Price wise, I have heard the run circles around
> everyone.
>
> RAD has some options, but their pricing looks much higher than Ciena.
>
> Accedian looked interesting, but it seems they don't make aggregation
> switches, only NIDs.
>
> ECI Telecom / Ribbon seems to have some options, but I have not talked to
> them.
>
> What does Nokia and Cisco have in this space, and price wise is it going
> to compare to these less known vendors?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Colton Conor]

Patrick,

Yes, I would say that was quite some time ago. From my most recent quotes
from Ciena, they have version 6, version 8, and version 10 products now. I
wonder if they have improved (I would hope) over the years.

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 10:12 PM Patrick Cole  wrote:

> Colton,
>
> This was 6+ years ago, SAOS 6.14, so I don't know it might be better now.
>
> We changed to Cisco ASR920 and it was a night and day difference - we now
> have
> 90ish ASR920s in production but are migrating toward the NCS540X.
>
> Patrick
>
> Sat, May 29, 2021 at 10:13:13AM -0500, Colton Conor wrote:
>
>
> >Patrick,
> >How long ago was this, and what code were they running?
> >What do you recommend for aggregation then?
> >On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 9:17 PM Patrick Cole  wrote:
> >
> >  We ran a medium sized mpls network using ciena 3900 and 5000 series
> >  boxes on our microwave network.
> >  Nothing but problems, the mpls code was just not mature enough and
> our
> >  radio network had the boxes falling apart at the seams as storms
> rolled
> >  through.  At that time they didn't support FRR or proper CSPF so
> >  everything had to be manually engineered active standby LSPs. Not
> sure
> >  if things have changed now. These boxes have Nortel vintage and they
> >  seemed best delloyed using PBB TE as it was mature.
> >  As an NID though they are not a bad option but not in core or
> >  aggregation IMHO.
> >
> >  On 29 May 2021 08:49:51 Colton Conor 
> wrote:
> >
> >Yes, I was surprised as you that they have these routing
> features. I
> >was also surprised they had multiple boxes that compete with
> >aggregation devices like the ACX5048. The question is how good is
> >Ciena's MPLS, switching, and routing stack compared to the
> established
> >players of Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia? Ciena is no small company,
> so I
> >think they would have the resources to make it happen.
> >On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:32 PM  wrote:
> >
> >  Wow, ciena has the means to implement SR and MPLS services?  I
> mean
> >  they run the underlying LS IGP to signal those SIDâ**s ??  I
> >  didnâ**t know that.  I may look at them in the future then.  I
> >  thought Ciena just did some sort of static mpls-tp or
> somethingâ*¦
> >
> >
> >
> >  We use Accedian as NIDâ**s with SkyLight director for PAA (SLA
> >  stuff)â*¦and uplink those into our network at (yester-year,
> Cisco
> >  ME3600â**s and ASR9000â**s), but now, ACX5048 and MX204
> >
> >
> >
> >  -Aaron
> >
> >
>
> --
> Patrick Cole 
> Chief Engineer
> Spirit Technology Solutions
> 19-25 Raglan St, South Melbourne VIC 3205
> Desk:0385541391
> Mobile:  0410626630
>

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Eric Kuhnke]

If one installs smokeping on a raspberry pi using a wired ethernet
interface to a home router, on a DOCSIS3 residential last mile segment, and
copies over a well chosen targets file for things to test, and sets it to a
60s interval, all other settings at default...  It's quite rare to find a
network segment that isn't anywhere from 0.05 to 0.30% packet loss (or
sometimes worse!) to its default gateway over a 24 hour period.

Also very informative is when you see spikes in latency and jitter during
evening peak usage hours. Lots of very basic test methodology can reveal
the nature of oversubscribed contended access mediums. Last-mile 5 GHz band
PtMP WISPs can see exactly the same issues on an overloaded AP.





On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 12:09 PM Denys Fedoryshchenko <
nuclear...@nuclearcat.com> wrote:

> It can't be zero.
> In 1000BaseT specs, BER, 1 in 1*10^10 bits error is considered
> acceptable on each link.
> So it should be defined same way, as acceptable BER.
> And until which point? How to measure?
> Same for bandwidth, port rate can be 1Gbit, ISP speedtest too, but most
> websites 100Kbit.
>
> On 2021-05-31 21:28, Fred Baker wrote:
> > I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it
> > points to an underlying problem.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman
> >>  wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >> I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure
> >> broadband everyone can agree on.  Is there a better way, sure, but
> >> how can you quantify it?
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman
> >> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >> 1100 Wayne St
> >> Suite 1337
> >> Troy, OH 45373
> >>
> >> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't
> >>> the end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of
> >>> us here knew that. However, many of us here still get distracted
> >>> by the bps.
> >>>
> >>> If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it
> >>> right?
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Mike Hammett
> >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >>> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>>
> >>> Midwest-IX
> >>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>>
> >>> From: "Sean Donelan" 
> >>> To: "NANOG" 
> >>> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM
> >>> Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for
> >>> US broadband connections)
> >>>
> >>> I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps
> >>> measurements
> >>> for IP congestion collapse.  During the peering battles, some ISPs
> >>> used to
> >>> claim average bps measurements showed no problems.  But in reality
> >>> there
> >>> were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse
> >>> which
> >>> didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.
> >>>
> >>> Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world
> >>> minimum
> >>> connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams
> >>> applications, job
> >>> interview video calls, and network background application noise?
> >>>
> >>> During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home
> >>> schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of
> >>>
> >>> different states.  Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service
> >>> (fixed
> >>> or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline
> >>> students
> >>> on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group
> >>> calls,
> >>> and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing
> >>> those
> >>> students to fail exams unnecessarily.
> >>>
> >>> In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers,
> >>> pupils
> >>> with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections
> >>> at
> >>> home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average
> >>> bps graph
> >>> was less than 1 mbps.
>

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[james.cut...@consultant.com]

> On May 31, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Josh Luthman  > wrote:
> 
> I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband 
> everyone can agree on.  Is there a better way, sure, but how can you quantify 
> it?

See https://www.waveform.com/tools/bufferbloat 
 as a very good starting point.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[james.cut...@consultant.com]

On May 31, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the 
> indoor WiFi?  Is it possible the router has so much interference from all of 
> the neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz?  What if that example had a cable 
> connection with 960/40 mbps and they're limited to 5 mbps up because of the 
> in house WiFi solution?
> 
> Would upping the broadband plan to 1000/1000 fix that problem?

No. But inadequate local network configurations are not arguments against 
1000/1000 or just 100/100. 

Over a few decades of customer support using screen sharing and also testing 
new software releases I have come to understand that asymmetric speeds are not 
satisfactory. I assume that is why ISP marketing and speed tests emphasize 
download speed with no other applications in use, minimize upload speed, and 
generally ignore performance under load (see buffer bloat). 

This is not confined to just one end of a connection. Clients using a VoIP 
service encounter terrible voice connections while screen sharing or receiving 
software updates. Any software updating from the support end using the typical 
(comparatively minuscule) upload speeds are expensive, not for ISP charges, but 
for the time required. For these applications (which do not include family 
sharing) having only 100/100 is immensely more productive than 100/10. Of 
course, 1000/1000 would be delightful if ‘affordable’ to a single entrepreneur.

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Denys Fedoryshchenko]

It can't be zero.
In 1000BaseT specs, BER, 1 in 1*10^10 bits error is considered 
acceptable on each link.

So it should be defined same way, as acceptable BER.
And until which point? How to measure?
Same for bandwidth, port rate can be 1Gbit, ISP speedtest too, but most 
websites 100Kbit.


On 2021-05-31 21:28, Fred Baker wrote:

I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it
points to an underlying problem.

Sent from my iPad


On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman
 wrote:




I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure
broadband everyone can agree on.  Is there a better way, sure, but
how can you quantify it?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett 
wrote:


I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't
the end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of
us here knew that. However, many of us here still get distracted
by the bps.

If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it
right?

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

-

From: "Sean Donelan" 
To: "NANOG" 
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM
Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for
US broadband connections)

I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps
measurements
for IP congestion collapse.  During the peering battles, some ISPs
used to
claim average bps measurements showed no problems.  But in reality
there
were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse
which
didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.

Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world
minimum
connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams
applications, job
interview video calls, and network background application noise?

During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home
schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of

different states.  Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service
(fixed
or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline
students
on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group
calls,
and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing
those
students to fail exams unnecessarily.

In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers,
pupils
with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections
at
home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average
bps graph
was less than 1 mbps.

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Fred Baker]

I would add packet loss rate. Should be zero, and if it isn’t, it points to an 
underlying problem.

Sent from my iPad

> On May 31, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Josh Luthman  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband 
> everyone can agree on.  Is there a better way, sure, but how can you quantify 
> it?
> 
> Josh Luthman
> 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
> 
> 
>> On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:
>> I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the 
>> end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew 
>> that. However, many of us here still get distracted by the bps.
>> 
>> If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> Midwest-IX
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>> 
>> From: "Sean Donelan" 
>> To: "NANOG" 
>> Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM
>> Subject: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US 
>> broadband connections)
>> 
>> 
>> I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements 
>> for IP congestion collapse.  During the peering battles, some ISPs used to 
>> claim average bps measurements showed no problems.  But in reality there 
>> were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which 
>> didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.
>> 
>> 
>> Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum 
>> connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job 
>> interview video calls, and network background application noise?
>> 
>> 
>> During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home 
>> schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of 
>> different states.  Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed 
>> or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students 
>> on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls, 
>> and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those 
>> students to fail exams unnecessarily.
>> 
>> In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils 
>> with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at 
>> home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph 
>> was less than 1 mbps.
>> 
>> 

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

[Josh Luthman]

I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure
broadband everyone can agree on.  Is there a better way, sure, but how can
you quantify it?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:16 AM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> I think that just underscores that the bps of a connection isn't the
> end-all, be-all of connection quality. Yes, I'm sure most of us here knew
> that. However, many of us here still get distracted by the bps.
>
> If we can't get it right, how can we expect policy wonks to get it right?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Sean Donelan" 
> *To: *"NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Saturday, May 29, 2021 6:25:12 PM
> *Subject: *Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US
> broadband connections)
>
>
> I thought in the 1990s, we had moved beyond using average bps measurements
> for IP congestion collapse.  During the peering battles, some ISPs used to
> claim average bps measurements showed no problems.  But in reality there
> were massive packet drops, re-transmits and congestive collapse which
> didn't show up in simple average bps graphs.
>
>
> Have any academic researchers done work on what are the real-world minimum
> connection requirements for home-schooling, video teams applications, job
> interview video calls, and network background application noise?
>
>
> During the last year, I've been providing volunteer pandemic home
> schooling support for a few primary school teachers in a couple of
> different states.  Its been tough for pupils on lifeline service (fixed
> or mobile), and some pupils were never reached. I found lifeline students
> on mobile (i.e. 3G speeds) had trouble using even audio-only group calls,
> and the exam proctoring apps often didn't work at all forcing those
> students to fail exams unnecessarily.
>
> In my experience, anecdotal data need some academic researchers, pupils
> with at least 5 mbps (real-world measurement) upstream connections at
> home didn't seem to have those problems, even though the average bps graph
> was less than 1 mbps.
>
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

I think it's hilarious when a governmental entity funded by the taxpayers
thinks they have an answer to broadband.  If you're collecting funds from
customers, why do you need the City of Sherwood to support your network?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 6:22 PM Brandon Price 
wrote:

> 100/100 minimum for sure.
>
> In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and
> 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.
>
> We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census
> block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower
> and hit the current definition's upload speed.
>
> I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...
>
>
> Brandon Price
> Senior Network Engineer
> City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG  On Behalf
> Of Sean Donelan
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
> To: NANOG Operators' Group 
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or
> know the content is safe.
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> > At least 100/100.
> >
> > We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start
> everyone at if I could.
>
>
> At $50/month or less?
>
> Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.
>
>

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Josh Luthman]

Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the
indoor WiFi?  Is it possible the router has so much interference from all
of the neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz?  What if that example had a
cable connection with 960/40 mbps and they're limited to 5 mbps up because
of the in house WiFi solution?

Would upping the broadband plan to 1000/1000 fix that problem?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 2:56 PM Chris Adams  wrote:

> Once upon a time, Mike Hammett  said:
> > "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
> >
> > What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?
>
> More than one person in a residence, home security systems (camera,
> doorbell, etc.) uploading continuously, and more.
>
> I know multiple people that had issues with slow Internet during the
> last year as two adults were working from home and 1-3 children were
> also schooling from home.  Parents had to arrange work calls around
> their kids classroom time and around each other's work calls, because of
> limited bandwidth.
>
> The time of the Internet being a service largely for consumption of data
> is past.  While school-from-home may be a passing thing as the pandemic
> wanes, it looks like work-from-home (at least part time) is not going to
> go away for a whole lot of people/companies.
>
> --
> Chris Adams 
>

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

[Adam Thompson]

Extreme has excellent MEF implementations.  I've never used their MPLS 
implementations, but it's definitely there on, I think, all their products.  I 
only have the X620 model in my network, which may or may not work for you.  
Beware using any EXOS-based product (anything that starts with "X") unless 
you're already familiar with EXOS!  I cannot emphasise this enough!
Extreme's other product lines come from Nortel/Avaya and Broadcom heritage, and 
also have good MEF implementations (and more-or-less-sane OSes).  They have 
MPLS support, but again, no experience with it.
I can't give much advice on pricing as I get both edu & gov discounts, but they 
are competitive with Arista and Cisco when we go to RFP.

Also, Juniper's MX (and maybe PTX?) families support MEF if that's a hard 
requirement.  I know some but not all EX switches have had both MEF and MPLS, 
too.  Beware many EX models have pretty minimalist MPLS implementations (e.g. 
no VPLS).  Agreed on their pricing, though, which is why I don't have any .  
But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if you can afford it.

Lastly, have you seen https://www.mef.net/certify/technology-registry/ ?

-Adam

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[1593169877849]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athomp...@merlin.mb.ca
www.merlin.mb.ca


From: NANOG  on behalf of 
Colton Conor 
Sent: May 26, 2021 11:39
To: NANOG 
Subject: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

For MPLS and MEF switches, I know Juniper, Cisco, and Nokia are commonly talked 
about on this list. However, I was wondering if anyone has evaluated other 
brands? We are not interested in looking at chinese based vendors, so ZTE and 
Huawei are not an option. Anyone else worth looking into?

We have used Juniper's ACX line primarily, but there is a big gap in their 
product line. The ACX2200 has only two 10G ports. The next jump up from there 
is the ACX710 with 24 10G ports. They have nothing in between that has 4-12 10G 
ports. Not to mention, Juniper is very proud price wise. We are looking for 
cost efficient 10G NIDs with at least 4 10G ports on them and aggregation boxes 
with at least 12 10G ports on them with 25g/100G uplinks.

Ciena seems to have multiple options available with Segment Routing, MPLS, and 
streaming telemetry support. I am probably most interested in what Ciena has to 
offer. Has anyone deployed the 3000 or 5000 product line of Ciena? How does it 
compare to Juniper? The Ciena 3924 is sub $1000 for example, and has 4 10G 
ports on it.

Adva has quite a few options as well, but I don't think their routing stack is 
as strong as Ciena's.

Tejas was an unknown player to me, but they seem to have a couple of options 
that fit the bill. Price wise, I have heard the run circles around everyone.

RAD has some options, but their pricing looks much higher than Ciena.

Accedian looked interesting, but it seems they don't make aggregation switches, 
only NIDs.

ECI Telecom / Ribbon seems to have some options, but I have not talked to them.

What does Nokia and Cisco have in this space, and price wise is it going to 
compare to these less known vendors?

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/31/21 16:17, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:


Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do 
it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to 
the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about 
smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys 
come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky 
about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband 
that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead).


This is exactly what happened (and continues to happen) in South Africa.

The first FTTH roll-outs were not by the incumbent. Nearly 6 years 
later, the incumbent joined the party seriously and is, actually, the 
lowest priced fibre provider.


But on the whole, it's the small, nondescript companies, that continue 
to pave the way.


I got FTTH to my house back in 2015, when 99.999% of the country was 
still on ADSL. My installation was done by the company's CEO on a chilly 
Saturday morning. I was still in my gown.


It's not a thing anymore (even though fibre is, really, limited to the 
large cities), but the constant theme is that folk aren't hanging around 
picking their noses, waiting for gubbermint policy to egg them on.


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/31/21 11:49, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:



I do not live in the US and I do not pay US taxes. So I have no 
opinion on the original question. Let me offer an observation:


I live in NL and I have two strands of glass plus coax into my house 
in a rural village in the ‘far south’. I do not live at the end of a 
50 mile dirt road but for NL it is quite rural. The fibre has been 
installed and paid for by a company called Reggefiber, founded and 
backed by not-for-profit real estate developers. They do not provide 
the Internet service. I have a choice of ISPs using the Reggefiber 
glass. I buy 500/500 from one of those at EUR 69.50, ~ USD 85 per 
month; this includes a data-only SIM with 1GB/month on 4G whether I 
want it or not. I actually get 500/500 to the office, we peer with the 
ISP.  I get at least 450/450 to my family server hosted in DE (RTT 
~15ms); so I have to bandwidth limit the back-ups I pull *to* my house 
from DE lest I inconvenience the rest of the family. I canceled the 
cable broadband which I initially kept for redundancy after a year 
because the glass is more than reliable enough.


I am a happy customer!

The reasons this got installed were not subsidies from public/tax 
money. They were:


1) Reggefiber was not connected to one of the incumbents with 
existing plant.
2) Reggefiber was run by people who understood long term, low 
return investments.
    2a) They got their money from the part of the banks that 
understand such investments.
3) The government did not provide subsidies but regulations that 
made this viable for Reggefiber and the ISPs.
    3a) Afaik the government provided a subsidy for a small number 
(1?) of proof-of-concept deployments.


I guess you see it coming from the past tense already. KPN, the major 
incumbent acquired Reggefiber through some pretty impressive lobbying 
effort that made it impossible for the founders to keep it. The 
company still exists but deployment rates have gone down. On the 
bright side: the model has proven to work and there are quite some 
smaller localised efforts. I guess that these are similar to the US 
co-op idea that was mentioned here.


Just my own observations. Think globally, act locally.


The Stokab model, in Stockholm, still continues to impress me.

Your story reminded me of them.

Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mark Tinka]

On 5/31/21 11:32, Baldur Norddahl wrote:



But why would the goal be fiber to every household? There are other 
ways to deliver good internet. In fact all of the major platforms can 
do so: fiber, coax, DSL, fixed wireless, 4G / 5G. The fiber platform 
will do so naturally, the others may require some extra investment but 
are still options.


I think the goal to get fibre to all corners should be maintained. 
However, one has to remain practical and use the most appropriate 
alternative, if fibre is not feasible.





Of course there are developing countries where the goal is any 
internet at all. I hope that is not the case for US broadband.


I have often been surprised about the quality of the Internet in 
"developed" environments :-).


Mark.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Andy Ringsmuth]

As much as I enjoy the generally cordial nature of this list, I’m going to go 
out on a limb and say that Mr. Hammett’s mentality on this topic is precisely 
the problem. Arguing against every reasonable proposition we are making to 
increase home broadband speeds.

I’m assuming he’ll disagree. And that’s OK. He’s still wrong.

“People want X. Why?”  - Doesn’t matter. I don’t need a reason for what I want. 
I probably have one, but that reason is my business, not yours.

The big ISPs are, historically and factually, greedy, stingy, and in many cases 
flat-out liars on all this. Taking USF money for DECADES and squandering it, 
for instance. Advertising speeds (I’m looking at you, Frontier) they knew full 
well they couldn’t provide. Charging $40 for service on one street and $80 for 
IDENTICAL service one block away. Promising to state governments they would 
upgrade and then not doing it (Charter in New York, anyone?).

Blah blah blah shareholders blah blah blah. DGAF.

Where there is a will, there is a way. The big boys don’t have the will to do 
it. Case after case after case after case after case demonstrates that fiber to 
the home can be done and can be done for a very reasonable cost. We read about 
smaller companies or municipalities every day doing it. And then the Big Boys 
come along and do EVERYTHING they can to stifle competition (getting all snarky 
about pole access, or pouring billions into lobbying against muni broadband 
that could be spent on, oh, I dunno, INSTALLING FIBER instead).

“When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
need to have a good reason.” Apply that same thinking to all the reasons the 
Big Boys give for NOT installing fiber or upgrading their networks. How many 
billions have they spent on lobbying and lawsuits to stop competition and not 
install fiber that could have been better spent?

I will go so far as to directly ask:

Mike - who is paying you to lobby so hard against better/faster/more reliable 
home internet?


Andy Ringsmuth
5609 Harding Drive
Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
(402) 304-0083
a...@andyring.com

“Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863

> On May 31, 2021, at 8:01 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is 
> reckless without real, compelling evidence.
> 
> People want X. Why?
> 
> When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
> need to have a good reason.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Baldur Norddahl" 
> To: "NANOG" 
> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> 
> søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett :
> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
> anyone care?
> 
> That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and 
> therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that 
> someone believes these people could do with less.
> 
> The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

I agree that what is being subsidizes needs to be re-evaluated. USF is one of 
the largest slush funds we have. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Blake Dunlap"  
To: "Baldur Norddahl"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 3:56:52 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 


The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have either 
sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their 
subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Setting 
the bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more backhaul meet 
it only serves to limit the interest in fixing the problem correctly so 
Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50 bucks for few 
more years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants that are barely 
maintained as it is simply because established companies want to collect the 
gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to actually make anything 
better because it's better for their bottom line to keep everyone's 
expectations firmly in the 90s or even 80s. 


On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl < baldur.nordd...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 








søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net >: 




What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
anyone care? 






That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and 
therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone 
believes these people could do with less. 


The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 


Regards 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett]

Why is any of that a reasonable position to have? What you're proposing is 
reckless without real, compelling evidence. 

People want X. Why? 


When making policy changes and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, you 
need to have a good reason. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Baldur Norddahl"  
To: "NANOG"  
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2021 12:53:25 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 







søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net >: 




What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
anyone care? 






That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and 
therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that someone 
believes these people could do with less. 


The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 


Regards 


Baldur 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Christian de Larrinaga via NANOG]

Nobody needs more than 64k of RAM. 

On Sun 30 May 2021 at 14:28, Mike Hammett  
wrote:



That doesn't really serve any value and 99.99% of people 
would not pay
any more than $50 for the ability, so your ability to execute 
such a system is

limited.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

━━━
From: "Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe" 
To: "Laura Smith" 
Cc: "NANOG Operators' Group" 
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2021 4:43:50 PM
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I’m right there with you.  I can download an entire Mac OS 
update in 6 minutes.
 It’s astonishing.  I’d pay a grand a month for this.  I’d pay 
 five.


-LB

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
CEO 
b...@6by7.net
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications 
company in the

world.”
ANNOUNCING: 6x7 GLOBAL MARITIME

FCC License KJ6FJJ


[cid][cid]


On May 29, 2021, at 1:57 AM, Laura Smith via NANOG 
 wrote:


I agree with Dan.

In Switzerland you can get 10Gb symmetric to the home for 
49.95 per month

(or 39.95 if you have a mobile with the same ISP) .

As with Dan, average utilisation is measured in Mb. 

But then the ability to go from that to download 10GB of the 
latest patches
from Microsoft or Apple, or the ability to upload large 
files for off-site
backups or for friends/customers  I don't know what I'd 
do without it !
   

And of course, the days of the buffering wheel of death when 
streaming 4K
TV is long gone ...  I can have multiple people in multiple 
rooms in my

house streaming 4K and nobody notices.

I would never, ever, go back to DSL.  Even if they hiked the 
price 5x, I'd

still pay it.

Coming back to the original question on this thread, my 
answer would be the
minimum for 2021 should be 1/1.  Anything less than that is 
a bit silly and

will soon be obsolete.

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, 29 May 2021 04:50, Dan Stralka 
 wrote:



But it is reality, it's just not your reality, Mike. 
Brandon's ISP

can provide that service.

So should there be a more granular definition of speeds 
mandated based

on population density, last mile tech, etc?

I was in the camp that you didn't need higher bandwidth 
than you'd
normally find - I was happy on my 50/10 plan. Then my 
ISP upgraded me
to a 300/50 or thereabouts and it was a night and day 
difference in
getting things done. 

Just like your example of average utilization being in 
the single
megabits per second, my average utilization is near 
zero. But when I
need to move files I can burst to speeds that aren't 
embarrassing in

2021.

Higher bandwidth is both welcome and necessary. It 
doesn't have to be
sustained throughout the contract to be required. The 
only question is
how feasible it is, and I suspect it's quite feasible 
for larger
players. 


Dan

(end)

On Fri, May 28, 2021, 22:33 Mike Hammett 
 wrote:



That's not based in any kind of reality.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com

From: "Brandon Price" 
To: "Sean Donelan" , "NANOG 
Operators' Group"


Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 5:21:53 PM
Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections


100/100 minimum for sure.

In our small neck of the woods, we are currently 
doing 250/250 for

$45 and 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.

We have lost some grants on rural builds because 
"someone" in the
census block claims they provide broadband.. Not 
hard to put an AP
up on a tower and hit the current definition's 
upload speed.


I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer 
what they
"need"...  


Brandon Price
Senior Network Engineer
City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband

-Original Message-
From: NANOG 
 
On

Behalf Of Sean Donelan
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
To: NANOG Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband 
connections


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the 
organization. Do

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

My USF dollars at work… You’re welcome.

I’d also appreciate it if we didn’t structure the subsidies such that it 
doesn’t make any economic sense to provide services to the middle-density 
market.

Owen


> On May 30, 2021, at 13:56 , Blake Dunlap  wrote:
> 
> The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have 
> either sewer or cable managed to run hard fiber for dirt cheap to all their 
> subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Setting 
> the bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more backhaul 
> meet it only serves to limit the interest in fixing the problem correctly so 
> Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50 bucks for few 
> more years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants that are barely 
> maintained as it is simply because established companies want to collect the 
> gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to actually make anything 
> better because it's better for their bottom line to keep everyone's 
> expectations firmly in the 90s or even 80s.
> 
> On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl  > wrote:
> 
> 
> søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett  >:
> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should 
> anyone care?
> 
> That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and 
> therefore it becomes a need for rural communities. Doesn't matter that 
> someone believes these people could do with less.
> 
> The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Baldur 
> 
> 

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On May 28, 2021, at 06:56 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> "Bad connection" measures way more than throughput.
> 
> What about WFH or telehealth doesn't work on 25/3?

Pretty much everything if you have, say, 3+ people in your house trying to do 
it at once…

A decent Zoom call requires ~750Kbps of upstream bandwidth. When you get two
kids doing remote school and mom and dad each doing $DAYJOB via teleconferences,
that 3Mbps gets spread pretty thin, especially if you’ve got any other 
significant use
of your upstream connection (e.g. kids posting to Tik Tok, etc.)

Sure, for a single individual, 25/3 might be fine. For a household that has the 
industry
standard 2.53 people, it might even still work, but barely. Much above that 
average
and things degrade rapidly and not very gracefully.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Abhi Devireddy" 
> To: nanog@nanog.org, "Jason Canady" 
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:07:34 AM
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> Don't think it needs to change? From 25/3? Telehealth and WFH would like to 
> talk with you.
> 
> There's very few things more draining than a conference call with someone 
> who's got a bad connection. 
> Abhi
> 
> Abhi Devireddy
> 
> From: NANOG  on behalf of Jason 
> Canady 
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 7:39:14 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>  
> I second Mike.
> 
> On 5/28/21 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I don't think it needs to change.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> From: "Sean Donelan"  
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:29:08 PM
> Subject: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
> 
> 
> What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?
> 
> 
> This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year
> 
> year  speed
> 
> 1999  200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than 
> dialup/ISDN speeds)
> 
> 2000  200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service 
> providers had 128 kbps upload)
> 
> 2010   4 mbps down / 1 mbps up
> 
> 2015   25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired)
>  5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)
> 
> 2021   ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)
> 
> Not only in major cities, but also rural areas
> 
> Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't 
> advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for subsidies; not that they must 
> deliver better service.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Daniel Karrenberg]

I do not live in the US and I do not pay US taxes. So I have no opinion 
on the original question. Let me offer an observation:


I live in NL and I have two strands of glass plus coax into my house in 
a rural village in the ‘far south’. I do not live at the end of a 50 
mile dirt road but for NL it is quite rural. The fibre has been 
installed and paid for by a company called Reggefiber, founded and 
backed by not-for-profit real estate developers. They do not provide the 
Internet service. I have a choice of ISPs using the Reggefiber glass. I 
buy 500/500 from one of those at EUR 69.50, ~ USD 85 per month; this 
includes a data-only SIM with 1GB/month on 4G whether I want it or not. 
I actually get 500/500 to the office, we peer with the ISP.  I get at 
least 450/450 to my family server hosted in DE (RTT ~15ms); so I have to 
bandwidth limit the back-ups I pull *to* my house from DE lest I 
inconvenience the rest of the family. I canceled the cable broadband 
which I initially kept for redundancy after a year because the glass is 
more than reliable enough.


I am a happy customer!

The reasons this got installed were not subsidies from public/tax money. 
They were:


	1) Reggefiber was not connected to one of the incumbents with existing 
plant.
	2) Reggefiber was run by people who understood long term, low return 
investments.
	2a) They got their money from the part of the banks that understand 
such investments.
	3) The government did not provide subsidies but regulations that made 
this viable for Reggefiber and the ISPs.
		3a) Afaik the government provided a subsidy for a small number (1?) of 
proof-of-concept deployments.


I guess you see it coming from the past tense already. KPN, the major 
incumbent acquired Reggefiber through some pretty impressive lobbying 
effort that made it impossible for the founders to keep it. The company 
still exists but deployment rates have gone down. On the bright side: 
the model has proven to work and there are quite some smaller localised 
efforts. I guess that these are similar to the US co-op idea that was 
mentioned here.


Just my own observations. Think globally, act locally.

Daniel

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 31.05.2021 06.52, Mark Tinka wrote:



On 5/29/21 00:38, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:


8 billion fiber drops for 8 billion people.


Technically speaking, 8 billion people is not 8 billion households :-).

But the bigger problem is getting fibre to every family in the world 
is not yet currently feasible.


There is a reason developing markets have a lot more mobile phones 
than they have people, or the energy to charge them.



But why would the goal be fiber to every household? There are other ways 
to deliver good internet. In fact all of the major platforms can do so: 
fiber, coax, DSL, fixed wireless, 4G / 5G. The fiber platform will do so 
naturally, the others may require some extra investment but are still 
options.


Of course there are developing countries where the goal is any internet 
at all. I hope that is not the case for US broadband.


Regards,

Baldur

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Don Fanning]

Wow...  Talk about a topic that will start a hornet's nest between
engineers and management every time if "money were no object".  It's sort
of like airlines asking "what should be the seat width of our cabins?"
You're gonna get some heated responses.

Just jumping into this thread after scanning over the general sentiments, I
see people who are alphageeks and those who look at everything
pragmatically.  Neither is wrong, but I agree with some that it's the wrong
question to be asking.  I've seen customer sentiment in general with cable
ISP's that the upstream is too limiting in this day and age of
Twitch/TikTok streams and heavy media users.  Gotta remember that for the
most part, almost all the internet traffic is TCP and thus has that two-way
charge when it comes to consuming data... the more data you receive, the
faster you need to ACK those packets and if you're upstream is limited, you
won't be delivering a quality product.

But more to the point, this is the time where a business could take
advantage of the opportunities being offered in resource capital to upgrade
their entire physical plant.  The minimum should be the best technology you
can offer for your subscriber base.  If you see your subscriber base
planning on utilizing 5G, then you'll need to consider throwing out the old
and upgrading the last mile.  That will be some cost and effort.  But last
I heard: glass fiber is fairly future-proof.

Wireless is great for addressing some of the legacy "last mile" issues -
but unless you're next to the device, you'll be fighting for sufficient
bandwidth - as we see with 2.4Ghz 802.11 networks simply due to physics
(ie: more bandwidth == less rf range).  And since wireless is a shared
resource in and of itself, it's not the solution by itself.

We shouldn't be blocking any improvement in any part of the network.  IPv6
and 5G could truly be an amazing thing and next-level products could be
brought to market - if the network was there.  We've seen many times that
if the bandwidth is available ( and hence the inception of 'Internet2'
which is proving beneficial for all sorts of science research due to the
size of datasets ) there will be applications - even if it's to allow
people to truly be without "boundaries" or freed from working in a specific
location due to physical presence requirements and are able to work
anywhere if bandwidth is available to accommodate and not be impacting.

This is usually the biggest consideration for every teleworker unless the
location provides other value (ie: production or lifestyle benefits).

You may only use enough home internet to stick to the lowest subscriber
package.  In an urban modern family, that would be the exception case.. not
the normal.

I get reluctance, but with Starlink and Amazon going up to orbit with
satellite constellations, Alphabet and FB doing drone/UAV research, etc...
the reason they're doing those projects and paying for the research of
"how @ scale to do x", because the physical plant network providers like
former Bell and Cable have a track record of not showing the willingness to
extend service out to that .09% of consumers within a region because the
customer lives at the end of a 50-mile dirt road and there are no other
subscribers along the way.

The fact that ADSL hasn't locked up this percentage of people is shameful
on a multitude of levels - and that's not even withstanding the security
reality of the next problem: SCADA and security were to manage the jack
pump at oil wells, you need to use a dialup modem just to flick a switch on
or off... let alone the other problems with running a national
infrastructure over the PSTN.

So the correct answer is a different question:  Which fiber technology will
we use to deliver FTTP/FTTH?

>From discussions I monitor in WISP/FISP space, the companies/isp's that
commit to building that future growth, are either causing subscriber growth
or are being called by real estate developers to drop fiber in new
communities because customers are demanding fast internet with their
freshly new homes.  For older locations, it should be a no-brainer and
especially to the farm where agra-biz impacts logistics and systems - like
tractors.




On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 5:32 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> What should be the new minimum speed for "broadband" in the U.S.?
>
>
> This is the list of past minimum broadband speed definitions by year
>
> year  speed
>
> 1999  200 kbps in both directions (this was chosen as faster than
> dialup/ISDN speeds)
>
> 2000  200 kbps in at least one direction (changed because too many service
> providers had 128 kbps upload)
>
> 2010   4 mbps down / 1 mbps up
>
> 2015   25 Mbps down / 3 Mbps up (wired)
>  5 Mbps down / 1 Mbps up (wireless)
>
> 2021   ??? / ??? (some Senators propose 100/100 mbps)
>
> Not only in major cities, but also rural areas
>
> Note, the official broadband definition only means service providers can't
> advertise it as "broadband" or qualify for