>There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”.
Can you provide examples? On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:51 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a > standardized approach to data acquisition and reliable comparable results > across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition. > > > > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband > connections" actually means, fat chance having a "nutritional facts" at the > back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step. > > > > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down > the "what color should we use for the bike shed" territory, while people in > rural America still have no or poor Internet access. > > > > Mark. > > ROFLMAO… > > People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I > know at least have GPON or better. > > Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of > Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is Comcast (which does finally purport > to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that. > > Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed > treatment no matter what we do. > > There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse > off from a broadband perspective than “rural America”. > > Owen > >
