you are thinking about an urban area buildout, and in the situation your
describe, I would agree with you.
I'm thinking of rural areas where houses are well separated (low single digit
houses per mile, or going to miles per house). Although now that Starlink is an
option, it may not be as bad to not have other options.
David Lang
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
David,
Yes, sure, if there's a choice between Internet access at 10Mbps and no
Internet at all forever, 10Mbps is clearly better than nothing. But that's
unlikely to be a realistic choice. A more realistic version of that is:
budgeting lets us roll out at a rate of 1,000 homes per week at 25Mbps capacity
or 1,500 homes per week if we can drop to 10Mbps. In that scenario, I would say
that the slower rollout at the higher bandwidth is better, even though that
delays some people getting access to Internet, because of the longer-term
effect of having an immediately obsolete max connection speed.
I have no objection to oversubscribing, providing it is done based an actual
statistical analysis of usage and provided on a good-faith basis (i.e., a
belief based on the data that the total capacity will support all users at some
significant % of the expected bandwidth at something like 99% or 99.9% of the
time). In my opinion, it is not reasonable to require an ISP to provide 100% of
its users the full bandwidth they pay for 100% of the time if all users were to
max out at the same time (something that never happens in the real world). That
drives up costs with negligible benefit.
I apologize if I've not been sufficiently clear on the 25Mbps minimum. I
believe I have, but perhaps I'm mistaken. I'm arguing that any ISP building new
capabilities to provision new users or enhancing its existing services for
existing users should establish a 25Mbps minimum top speed. It's fine if they
also offer cheaper slower speeds (not every user will care about getting 25Mbps
or want to pay for it). So, every user in this market should be able to get at
least 25Mbps, but it's fine that not all will. The important facet to this is
that the cabling and infrastructure be able to support at least 25Mbps
connections for those users willing to pay for it.
I don't have the same requirement on latency (because optimal latencies are
usually good enough and implementing cake for latency under load is generally a
low-cost or no-cost solution), but I would support if experts from this group
did have a similar max latency target and would support that this max be
measured under load.
Apologies for adding yet another metaphor, but I view these requirements as
similar to codes on minimum of 15amp or 20amp in-wall wiring in all new and
upgrade work performed by electricians. This doesn't affect existing wiring,
which is grandfathered, but it ensures no new construction is already obsolete
as it's being done.
Cheers,
Colin
-----Original Message-----
From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 11:51 PM
To: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@higbie.name>
Cc: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>; starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC
On Wed, 1 May 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote:
David,
You wrote, "I in no way advocate for the elimination of 25Mb connectivity. What I am
arguing against is defining that as the minimum acceptable connectivity. i.e. pretending
that anything less than that may as well not exist (ot at the very least should not be
defined as 'broadband')"
If you're simply talking about approaching an existing ISP with existing services and
telling them, "Please implement cake and codel to reduce latency problems at
load," then I'm with you. That's a clear win because you're fixing a latency problem
without creating any new problems. Good.
The importance of the 25Mbps minimum arises with NEW services, new
construction. Specifically, where an ISP is looking to expand their geographic
footprint or seeking funding to provide improvements or a new ISP is looking to
enter a market, it is DESTRUCTIVE for them to roll out a new service that can't
support at least 25Mbps service. This is because a new service rollout will
generally not be upgraded in terms of bandwidth capacity for a period of years
following the initial deployment. As stated before, it's fine if they also
OFFER plans with lower top speeds because not everyone needs 25Mbps, but they
must at least OFFER a minimum of a 25Mbps plan. You do more harm to Internet
infrastructure and further the Internet divide if you encourage good latency
for new constructions at sub-25Mbps bandwidth.
If members of this group are touting themselves as experts and advising ISPs,
then you must include the 25Mbps bandwidth as the floor for at least the top
tier of service.
I would rather there be an ISP serving an area with 10Mb than no ISP serving
the area (no matter what the latency)
for wireless Internet, it may not be possible to provide 25Mb of service to
some locations, so your argument then means those people get nothing.
I'm also seeing the policy folks in DC pushing for 25Mb to be the minimum for
the slowest offering.
So when I see people posting what I paraphrase as "if the service is slower than 25Mb,
that service should not exist", I argue. I apologize if that's not what you are arguing,
but up until this post (where you say "25Mb for the top tier of
service") that seemed to be what you were saying.
and then there's also the 'what does it mean to say 25Mb of service'. does that
mean that the ISP upstream must have 25Mb for every subscriber? or can they
oversubscribe to the point that if everyone were trying to use the service,
they each get 1Mb? how do you define how much oversubscription is allowed? how
do you justify where you draw the line (especially if you are arguing that
anything under 25Mb is unusable)
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Starlink mailing list
Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
