According to the 477 data it's less than 50% (updated 11/1/2021 and I think the public 477 is 2 years? behind) What makes you believe it's nearly 100%?
https://broadbandnow.com/North-Dakota On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:22 PM Brian Johnson <brian.john...@netgeek.us> wrote: > 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> wrote: > >> >> 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> 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> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >
