Haudy, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-338708A1.pdf
Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 11:50 PM Haudy Kazemi via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. > > Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median > latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP > code to the top 10 websites), data cap info, and bottom line price > including all unavoidable fees. > > ISP-provided WiFi routers would only be included in the bottom line price > if the ISP requires said WiFi routers as mandatory CPE. > > --- > Also, all this talk about higher minimum downstream and upstream bandwidth > is moot if simple data caps remain in place. Scrap simple data caps, > especially those that do not recognize that bandwidth availability varies > throughout the day. > > An alternative to simple data caps is to apply destination-agnostic > bandwidth shaping during peak usage periods on the ISP's network, with the > heaviest generators of on-peak traffic being deprioritized. This still > allows for an ISP to offer various tiers of service that have different > data bucket sizes. These might range from a discount tier of 'always > deprioritized during peaks' to a default tier of 'deprioritized after 1 TB > of monthly data transfer during peaks' to a premium tier of 'never > deprioritized during peaks'. > > --- > Grants: hold recipients of USF or other build-out grant money accountable. > That could mean incentives for build outs that are future-proof on the > scale of decades. An incentive that pays per foot, for conduit and fiber > installed in previously unserved areas, if that conduit actually serves the > properties along the route. > > Empty conduit is incredibly future proof. I have seen fiber installs being > placed in orange plastic tubing, which means even if some new form of fiber > is needed later, exchanging the fiber in the conduit will be possible > without requiring more trenching or drilling. > > --- > On bandwidth: perhaps some kind of 80/20 or 90/10 rule could be applied > that uses broadly available national peak service speeds as the basis for a > formula. An example might be...the basic service tier speed available to > 80% of the population is the definition of broadband. When 80% of the > population has access to 100/100 Mbps home service, then 100/100 becomes > the benchmark. When 80% of the population has access to 1/1 Gbps home > service, then 1/1 becomes the benchmark. Areas that don't have service that > meets the benchmark would be eligible for future-proof build-out > incentives, with incentives exponentially increasing as the area falls > further and further behind the benchmark. With 100/100 Mbps as the > benchmark, areas that currently are stuck with unreliable 1.5 Mbps/384k DSL > should be receiving upgrade priority. And even higher priority if the > benchmark has shifted to 1 Gbps. > > There also needs to be a way for properties to report 'I am not being > served'. This combined with clawbacks is a way to assure claimed build-out > funds don't leave service gaps in places build-out funds were spent. > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021, 20:28 Christopher Morrow <morrowc.li...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:48 PM Valdis Klētnieks <valdis.kletni...@vt.edu> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -0000, scott said: >>> > $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years. >>> >>> > On the high side: 14 years. >>> >>> Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even. >>> >>> The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long >>> break-even >>> schedule when short-term profits get emphasized. Telcos strung a lot of >>> copper >>> when they were assured of multiple decades of returns - and even *then* >>> getting >>> it out to rural areas required providing more incentive.... >>> >> >> (going to be pretty us-centric, sorry 'not use folks', also this isn't >> about valdis's message directly) >> There's a bunch of discussion which seems to sideline 'most of the >> population' and then >> the conversation ratholes on talk about folk that are not grouped >> together closely (living in cities/towns). >> I think this is a good example of: "Perfect is the enemy of the good" in >> that there are a whole >> bunch, 82% or so[1], of folk live 'in cities' (or near enough) as of 2019. >> If the 'new' standard is 100/100, that'd be perfectly servicable and >> deployable to >> 82% of the population. >> >> Wouldn't it make sense to either: >> 1) not offer subsidies to city-centric deployments (or pro-rate those) >> 2) get return on the longer-haul 'not city' deployments via slightly >> higher costs elsewhere? >> (or shift the subisidies to cover the rural deployments more >> completely?) >> >> Yes 'telco' folk will have to play ball, but also they get to keep their >> 'we do broadband' marketting.. >> Holding back ~80% of the population because you can't sort the other 20% >> out (or a large portion of that 20%) >> in a sane manner sure seems shortsighted. I get that trenching fiber down >> 'state-route-foobar' is hard, and costly, >> but throwing up your hand and declaring that 'no one needs XXX mbps' is >> more than just a little obstructionist. >> >> >> >> 1: >> https://www.statista.com/statistics/269967/urbanization-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=The%20statistic%20shows%20the%20degree,in%20cities%20and%20urban%20areas >> . >> >> >
