My example is just from experience. Not hypothetical, but also not a specific address I can recall or feel like looking up now.
The reality on the ground as someone who sells access to smallish businesses mostly in California is as I described. You can't see it on a map or database because the map may show a Comcast/att/whomever pop/availability at an address, but to get said access across the parking lot or street is a 6 figure build out cost and 6 months or more waiting for permits and construction to complete so effectively a building right across the lot or street from another has completely different options. If you want to zero in on an area to investigate/research I do recall fairly recently some business parks in Hayward, CA near 880 that had no options except bonded copper stuff up to maybe 50/50Mbps for a really high price. One of them I sold fiber DIA to and they waited about 8 months for permits and construction and signed a 5 year lease to reduce/avoid buildout costs. I guess fair cost and speed are subjective, but that clarifies the point I was making. Best, Brandon On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 1:15 PM Josh Luthman <[email protected]> wrote: > Because literally every case I've seen along these lines is someone > complaining about the coax connection is "only 100 meg when I pay for 200 > meg". Comcast was the most hated company and yet they factually had better > speeds (possibly in part to their subjectively terrible customer service) > for years. > > >An apartment building could have cheap 1G fiber and the houses across the > street have no option but slow DSL. > > Where is this example? Or is this strictly hypothetical? > > I am not seeing any examples, anywhere, with accurate data, where it's > what most consider to be in town/urban and poor speeds. The only one that > was close was Jared and I'm pretty sure when I saw the map I wouldn't > consider that in town (could be wrong) but again, there's gig fiber there > now. I don't remember if he actually got his CLEC, or why that matters, > but there's fiber there now. > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> What is the point of these anecdotes? Surely anyone on this list with >> even a passing knowledge of the broadband landscape in the United States >> knows how hit or miss it can be. An apartment building could have cheap 1G >> fiber and the houses across the street have no option but slow DSL. Houses >> could have reliable high speed cable internet, but the office park across >> the field has no such choice because the buildout cost is prohibitively >> high to get fiber, etc. >> >> There are plenty of places with only one or two choices of provider too. >> Of course, this is literally changing by the minute as new services are >> continually being added and upgraded. >> *Brandon Svec* >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:36 PM Josh Luthman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Can you provide examples? >>>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG >>>> >>>> Our good friend Jared could only get 1.5M DSL living just outside Ann >>>> Arbor, MI, so he had to start his own CLEC. >>>> >>>> I have friends in significantly more rural areas than he lives in ( >>>> Niagara and Orleans county NYS , between Niagara Falls and Rochester ) who >>>> have the same 400Mb package from Spectrum that I do, living in the City of >>>> Niagara Falls. >>>> >>>> This is not to say that rural America is a mecca of connectivity; there >>>> is a long way to go all the way around regardless. But it is a direct >>>> example as you asked for. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 3:57 PM Josh Luthman < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >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 <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <[email protected]> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>>
