Start with a neighborhood. A block. something. I'm sure there's a reason behind why something is the way it is.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 5:10 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 2022, at 13:13, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> > wrote: > > > I'll once again please ask for specific examples as I continue to see the > generic "it isn't in some parts of San Jose". > > > There are many such parts of San Jose. How specific do you want? Most of > the residential areas served by the Evergreen central office specific > enough for you? > > My house specific enough for you? (No, I won’t be posting my address to > NANOG). > > On the note of the generic area of San Jose, I'm all but certain this has > a lot to do with California and its extraordinarily complicated and near > impossible accessibility to obtain CLEC status. > > > My complaint here is that the ILECs are incentivized by USF$$ to put their > resources into rural, ignoring mezzo-urban and sub-urban customers. So I > don’t think your CLEC rant has much to do with that. > > This makes competition pretty much impossible and makes the costs of > operating one extraordinarily high. I'm obviously not going to be one that > claims that government is good or bad, just pointing out a certain > correlation which could potentially be causation. > > > I won’t deny that it could be a factor in the overall lack of competition > and I agree that process is long overdue for a tuneup. However, it’s not > the root cause of the repatriation of customer dollars from mezzo-urban and > sub-urban areas into rural infrastructure investment to the exclusion of > investment in those areas. > > Frankly, the simple solution to that problem would be to require that any > [IC]LEC receiving USF dollars provide a level of service to their USF donor > customers that is at least on par with the service they provide to their > USF beneficiary customers. > > Owen > > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> >> 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? >> >> >> There are literally dozens (if not thousands) of such examples in silicon >> valley alone. >> >> 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. >> >> >> Pretty sure you would have a hard time calling San Jose “not in town”. >> It’s literally #11 in the largest 200 cities in the US with a population of >> 1,003,120 (954,940 in the 2010 census) and a population density of 5,642 >> people/sq. mile (compare to #4 Houston, TX at 3,632/Sq. Mi.). >> >> Similar conditions exist in parts of Los Angeles, #2 on the same list at >> 3,985,516 (3,795,512 in 2010 census) and 8,499/Sq. Mi. >> >> I speak of California because it’s where I have the most information. I’m >> sure this situation exists in other states as well, but I don’t have actual >> data. >> >> The simple reality is that there are three sets of incentives that >> utilities tend to chase and neither of them provides for the mezzo-urban >> and sub-urban parts of America… >> 1. USF — Mostly supports rural deployments. >> 2. Extreme High Density — High-Rise apartments in dense arrays, Not >> areas of town houses, smaller apartment complexes, or single family >> dwellings. >> 3. Neighborhoods full of McMansions — Mostly built very recently and >> where the developers would literally pay the utilities to pre-deploy in >> order to boost sales prices. >> >> Outside of those incentives, there’s very little actual deployment of >> broadband improvements, leaving vast quantities of average Americans >> underserved. >> >> Owen >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 4:05 PM Brandon Svec via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> >> 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 < >>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: >>> >>>> OK the one example you provided has gigabit fiber though. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> 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 < >>>>> j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> 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 < >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>
