What is the rationale for changing it? Have the applications changed?
Has our use of them changed?
Yes, somewhat. There's been, and will continue to be, more cord cutting
of non-IP broadcast video services towards unicast IP streaming
services. However, video codecs have gotten more efficient so that what
used to require an 8Mbps stream now fits in a 4Mbps package. I see more
folks video conferencing (whether that be for personal or business use),
which relies more heavily on upload than most applications. Folks with
crummy WiFi or slower upload speeds have become the have-nots in this
remote work era. The goal of subsidies is to lift the base/minimum so
that there are fewer have-nots. Set the qualifier too low and you'll end
up providing assistance where it doesn't accomplish this goal. Raise the
qualifier too high too soon and you run the risk of excluding assistance
where it could help.
I'm content with 10Mbps down per person in the household (a quick rule
of thumb I've been using for a few years). If a common household has 4
people, 40Mbps download seems sufficient for today's typical usage (this
assumes a 10:1 download:upload ratio, so ~4Mbps up). Latency needs to be
quick enough for real-time voice or video calls to work smoothly. If the
makeup of our homes change or the applications we use within the home
change, I'm all for adjusting these figures. This still leaves DSL,
cable, fiber, and various wireless technologies as options that would
qualify for the definition of broadband. At some point, if one of these
technologies cannot keep up with the pace of demand it will need to be
excluded in favor of technologies that have done a better job of keeping
pace.
--B
On 5/28/2021 8:07 AM, Chris Adams (IT) wrote:
I’d be interested to understand the rationale for not wanting to
change the definition. Is it strictly the business/capital outlay expense?
Thanks,
**
Chris Adams
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung....@nanog.org> *On Behalf
Of *Jason Canady
*Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org
*Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
CAUTION:This email originated from /*outside the University of North
Georgia.*/ Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect this message
is fraudulent, please forward to s...@ung.edu
<mailto:s...@ung.edu?subject=%5BSPAM%20REPORT%5D> or contact the IT
Service Desk at 706-864-1922.
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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ics-2Dil.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=S2l1XV98d5g-7uCPfcvNNU5WuML3uo1LVamsKRY-JHE&e=>
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.midwest-2Dix.com&d=DwMDaQ&c=FbBevciwIvGuzsJQdDnze9uCWRSXekJosRCbxNiCfPE&r=2xyWjaGAJiQBS60SNfJGVrkSN3JvZBCiAkWZBLNrNQA&m=hLl3tE5IUFeCnGVaq9aENU6Cb0VwUJSMovT2ACT74-I&s=qGvndXaVQIOyFcKDLyED-Ufmklruq9Q3pArgVVFK1A8&e=>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From: *"Sean Donelan" <s...@donelan.com> <mailto:s...@donelan.com>
*To: *nanog@nanog.org <mailto: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.?
