> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/16/22 1:36 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> What is the embarrassment?
> That in the tech center of the world that we're so embarrassingly behind the 
> times with broadband. I'm going to get fiber in the rural Sierra Nevada 
> before Silicon Valley. In fact, I already have it, they just haven't 
> installed the NID. 
> Mike
> 
> 
I will provide another specific example albeit not San Jose but similar enough. 
 I am in  Loudoun County less than 25 minutes from Ashburn, VA.    My best 
option is fixed wireless from All Points Broadband (hi Tim) which is 15/3mbit/s 
costing $199/mo (they have cheaper, slower tiers available).  

Verizon FiOS serves a dense developer-built community less than 1 mile down the 
street from me, but everyone else outside of the towns and developer-built 
communities have almost zero options.

Similar to the San Jose examples, we are near some of the most dense 
connectivity in the world.  Travel 20-30 minutes in certain directions from 
Ashburn and you’re quickly seeing farms and limited connectivity.

Ryan
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:28 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com 
>> <mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 2/16/22 1:13 PM, Josh Luthman 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".
>>> 
>>> 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.  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.
>> Sonic has been installing fiber in San Francisco and other areas, but they 
>> are really small. Comcast can't be bothered that I've ever heard. The only 
>> other real alternative is things like Monkeybrains which is a WISP. It's 
>> really an embarrassment. 
>> Mike
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 12:52 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com 
>>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 11, 2022, at 13:14 , Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
>>>> Can you provide examples?
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twe6uTwOyJo&ab_channel=NANOG 
>>>> <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 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa 
>>>> > <mailto: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
>>>> 
>>> 

Reply via email to