Given this premise (that it is too expensive to provide access to rural areas), can you explain why nearly 100% of North Dakota is serviced by FTTH solutions. The exceptions being the areas still run by the traditional LECs?
I’m not to sure this should be an urban/rural debate. > On Feb 28, 2022, at 2:53 PM, Josh Luthman <j...@imaginenetworksllc.com> wrote: > > Ryan, > > This discussion was in regards to urban areas. > > Regarding your example, though, I expect you're in a hard to reach rural area > based on your description. It looks like there are absolutely a massive > amount of trees, making it hard for fixed wireless. Since it sounds like > your only option, which is better than no option at all, that's probably why > no wired solution has decided to build service there. At $50k/mile being a > pretty modest cost, at $200/mo does that seem like a viable business plan to > you? > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 11:25 PM Ryan Rawdon <r...@u13.net > <mailto:r...@u13.net>> wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2022, at 4:46 PM, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com >> <mailto: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 >>>>> >>>> >
