The real problem most users experience isn’t that they have a gig, or even 100Mb of available download bandwidth…it’s that they infrequently are able to use that full bandwidth due to massive over subscription .
The other issue is the minimal upload speed. It’s fairly easy to consume the 10Mb that you’re typically getting as a residential customer. Even “business class” broadband service has a pretty poor upload bandwidth limit. We are a pretty high usage family, and 100/10 has been adequate, but there’s been times when we are pegged at the 10 Mb upload limit, and we start to see issues. I’d say 25/5 is a minimum for a single person. Would 1 gig be nice…yeah as long as the upload speed is dramatically increased as part of that. We would rarely use it, but that would likely be sufficient for a long time. I wouldn’t pay for the extra at this point though. On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 8:20 PM Sean Donelan <s...@donelan.com> wrote: > > Remember, this rulemaking is for 1.1 million locations with the "worst" > return on investment. The end of the tail of the long tail. Rural and > tribal locations which aren't profitable to provide higher speed > broadband. > > These locations have very low customer density, and difficult to serve. > > After the Sandwich Isles Communications scandal, gold-plated proposals > will be viewed with skepticism. While a proposal may have a lower total > cost of ownership over decades, the business case is the cheapest for > the first 10 years of subsidies. [massive over-simplification] > > Historically, these projects have lack of timely completion (abandoned, > incomplete), and bad (overly optimistic?) budgeting. >
