Yes, the video doorbell and similar cameras are a great example of a
product that barely existed a few years ago and are now common place
(and one that is driving the need for change in the WiFi and broadband
space). I agree that a 5:1 (down:up) ratio is better than a 10:1 (and
that I do not recommend a 20:1 ratio for most folks).
As someone that has a video doorbell (wired) and several wireless cams,
I can tell you that my experience is that they worked fine on 50Mbps
down/10Mbps up while two folks did WFH. Would my experience have been
better with 25Mbps upload? Possibly. Would it have improved with 100Mbps
instead of 25Mbps? Probably not. At another location I did WFH on a
30M/3M connection with no adverse affects (that would be minus the video
doorbell, but with two WiFi cameras). I'm sure there were bottlenecks,
but either the applications dealt with it intelligently or they shared
the bandwidth well enough so that everything remained usable.
On 5/28/2021 9:34 AM, Abhi Devireddy wrote:
I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage
was more asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the
profile of a typical home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks
with all the collaboration that is happening remotely.
Typical residential usage:
Zoom group call: 2M upload
OneDrive + Dropbox + Box + Other file sync services: ~ 1 - 5M
Nest / Ring / Other constantly streaming camera = ~1M
If I'm working on a media file that's syncing real-time + on a zoom
call, artifacts are impossible to avoid. Add to that 2+ users working
remotely from the same home.
@Mike, Telehealth relies on a combination of HD video + accessories
that stream AV + telemetry in real-time. In addition to bumping up the
4M upload, I agree with all the other comments on here about setting
some parameters around latency and packet loss.
I think if anything, the proliferation of smart devices, requirements
for higher reliability and the continuity of WFH practices are going
to put additional demands on upload, not lower.
Abhi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* NANOG <nanog-bounces+abhi=devireddy....@nanog.org> on behalf
of Blake Hudson <bl...@ispn.net>
*Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 9:02 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
*Subject:* Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
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>
<mailto:nanog-bounces+chris.adams=ung....@nanog.org> *On Behalf Of
*Jason Canady
*Sent:* Friday, May 28, 2021 8:39 AM
*To:* nanog@nanog.org <mailto: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.?
