FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
41

Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.

Those lobbyists say government subsidies shouldn't be used to compete with them in areas with a 'competitive market.' (unless they get those subsidies).

As I said, this rulemaking is for the 1.1 million locations at the far tail-end of the 'long tail.'

Public comments are accepted from everyone. You can submit both formal and informal comments on the FCC web site. Public comments don't require a lawyer, and under the Administrative Procedures Act, receive the same consideration by the FCC.

42

re: FCC Proposes Higher Speed Goals for Small Rural Broadband Providers | Federal Communications Commission

> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem

+1
IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

I'd settle for the 100Mbit era having sub 25ms working latency. Which
we've been achieving in fq_codel, cake, and even pie, for 10 years.

I will file on this nprm, some variant of

But I keep hoping more will sign on board. Perhaps finding a lawyer to
proof it. And I'm not sure what hook to use on this nprm out of my
existing evolving document without tieing myself to a chair with a
variety of calming drugs handy.

I'm an engineer, dang it, not a politician!

43

Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, but let’s not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine.

44

Once upon a time, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> said:

Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine.

4K TVs are cheap, and 4K streaming content is plentiful, and usually
runs 15-20 Mbps. The average household has more than one person, and
they may want to watch different content.

And that's today. Gaming streaming is ramping up (which needs both good
bandwidth and low latency), and there'll always be things you haven't
considered popping up.

Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
enough for anybody.

45

Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
enough for anybody.

somewhere around here i have saved the early '90s message (from a
self-important person still on this list) saying africa will not need
anything more than fidonet.

whole new classes of use emerge when enabled. same as it ever was.

randy

46

Sounds like a comment made on the FCC TAC in 1994: “there is no broadband market above 1 MBPS.”

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

47

Maybe someone mentioned this in the current go-around but it seems we
discussed this going back to when post-dialup became available, and
before, regarding campus always-on links.

There are different underlying business models possible with different
bandwidths.

The major split is whether you meter or not.

For unmetered use there's a tendency to sell what you imagine the site
needs and if they fill it all the time ok.

For metered use you prefer to sell the site more bandwidth than they
might need on average, maybe a lot more, and they can pay if they use
a lot.

And the ever-popular hybrid models, sell a big pipe which includes
some unmetered use and only charge for overage.

And of course the ever unpopular yet common sell a big pipe with some
cap and tell them you might shape their connection on Sundays if the
moon is full and there's an 'r' in the month (kind of like ride share
pricing) tho probably no overage pricing, it just gets slow. Or maybe
overage charges also if you're a quasi-monopoly -- if we got it we'll
bill ya for using it, if not then you just won't get it.

From a marketing point of view that pretty much sums up the
possibilities. All you can eat vs THAT'S ALL YOU CAN EAT!

48

I will out an old member of list, not myself, he still runs Old Cisco (ASA managed, “fully”, might be debatable) firewall, capable of full duplex 100 Mbs, on -both- sides. :smiley: (WHOA)

His optic provider gave him a converter between the full optic GigE run into his house, and the 100 FD at the ASA. (It was a special deal, free installation

and more reliable than the competitor) (Both were actually =true=, can you imagine ?)

He runs a business in his basement that monitors several well known big services his business relies upon 24x7x365, for over 25 years.

All interruptions are noticed (within reason) and monitored, logged and alarmed accordingly.

He and his wife has raised 2 children through college, (one’s on his MBA), his retirement business… -everyone- streams, there is no “cable” per se, he “cut the wire” when it was fashionable….

and their children would rather video chat than walk across the room, or go out somewhere.

He adores telling me about how salespeople are constantly calling him to upgrade the service. “Why, we can fit 5GigE down to you now!” said the

salesperson with garish clothes and floppy clown feet. “You just can’t live without it!” “thump-thump” goes those feet……

He always asks them for the packet loss ratio on the existing link…… the call sorta ends after that.

FWIW, he always starts this story out with a snicker, and some latest and greatest gourmet drink…… :stuck_out_tongue:

49

This is always cute when posted from the haves vs the have-nots. I’m watching a lot of people who don’t want to take government money, or play along flail at all of this. They see the internet as for e-mail vs some futuristic use-case.

A few realities:

1) material cost is overall small for a fiber network (Even with the 250% price increase in the past ~24 months in materials)
2) Labor is the killer (this also has inputs of diesel fuel costs as the trucks that move the stuff are all diesel) reflecting 80%+ of the direct hard costs
3) There’s a lot of variable soft costs in permitting, engineering (Drawings) and network design inputs.
4) Many electric utilities have poor quality poles and want to charge tenants to upgrade them when they’ve ignored them for decades
5) Several companies have zero incentive to improve the QOE of the end-user service

Of course speed, latency, reliability matter.

It’s possible to hit people with varying technologies, and when you stick to one, be it PON, HFC, xDSL + FTTx, the other inputs come into play, be it the spectrum reserved for RF overlay on PON and HFC or otherwise.

You’re also seeing carriers walk away from new developments if they can’t be the monopoly option there, so it’s quite interesting watching what happens with my FTTH hat on.

I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available if you’re willing to take it. It might mean taking the USF money and the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the programs work and have the right integration/reporting.

- Jared

50

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home.

51

Sadly thus us repeating the same problematic data based on average usage by older Americans vs usage by younger people or those of us with several children.

I agree with the average utilization but when it comes to those peaks my customers can finish their uploads or restores quickly when they do need it. If they are behind a limiter at 25m suddenly that FedEx or carrier pigeon seems best.

Business I was at today says they need 40mbps

  • Jared
52

Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

Owen

53

It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG <owen@delong.com> said:

-=-=-=-=-=-
Forgive me if I have little or no sympathy for them.

The laws of physics make it rather difficult to provide symmetrical speeds on
shared media like coax or cellular radio. As wired networks move to all fiber
they'll get more symmetrical but in the meantime I expect that Comcast, Spectrum,
Cox, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile are deeply troubled by your disapproval.

R's,
John

54

I would say, if you’re looking to build or expand your networks, focus on how you can get the fiber out there, there’s a lot of money available if you’re willing to take it. It might mean taking the USF money and the obligations that go with that in reporting, compliance, etc.. but those costs don’t have to be onerous if you are mindful of how the programs work and have the right integration/reporting.

Yep. No one is forcing carriers to take USF money. They can essentially build whatever they want without USF money.

However, if they do take the USF money, what should be the absolute minimum delivery requirements? They can always build above the minimum.

Its essentially a reverse auction. If the government sets the requirements too high, the carriers claim they will walk away and the long-tail of broadband doesn't happen. If the government sets the requirements too low, the carriers take the money and build less.

The historical problem is carriers promise whatever it takes to win, take the money and don't deliver (or demand more money to finish).

55

This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home.

All the large DOCSIS networks of which I am aware are in fact working on changing their spectrum plan and physical layer to enable higher US speeds and in some cases symmetric multi-gig services.

JL

56

Yep. No one is forcing carriers to take USF money. They can essentially build whatever they want without USF money.

Unless of course USF funds are used to over build your already existing network. This is exactly the situation I’m in.

57

Yes, I’ve seen Comcast claim to offer 2G symmetric services in their applications for funding from state/local authorities to expand their networks to unserved or underserved areas. I have no reason to disbelieve this claim. I’ve been talking to vendors about what’s going on for the next generation of FTTx/PON and it looks quite attractive at this point, I’m excited to see the latency drops and speeds go up for people once they’re off DSL or DOCSIS over time.

In my early days of research for my “hobby ISP” as I call it, I looked at getting older docsis systems as an option/alternative, and it seemed to be worthwhile as without a TV overlay, there were more options for speed.

The reality is today once you have the infrastructure in place, if you planned well you can easily upgrade with overlays.

- Jared

58

It can exceed 25 megs, but it isn’t common. Certainly not common enough to throw hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars at the long tail.

59

Here in Italy there have been a lot of investments to get better broadband.

Such as government sponsored bundles for areas with no return on investments, for schools etc with a lot of focus on reaching gigabit speeds

The results have been mainly positive even though there are delays.

On the end user side in 2020 one of the largest ISPs started offering 2.5Gbps service

Adds all over and users started asking for it, even though they don’t have a 2.5 nic or router, so now all of the major providers are rolling it out.

Illiad one uped them a couple of months ago pushing a 5Gbps service and now I get people asking me if we offer 5Gbps fiber lines… pure marketing…

I have a 1Gbps/100Mbps line and it is plenty enough for the family rarely do we even get near the limits.

It’s kind of like when I ask for an Italian espresso in the states and get a cup full of coffee, no I just want a very small italian style espresso…

The response is Why? you are paying for it take it all

Bigger is better, even if you don’t need it, reigns supreme.

60

"The question I have for other operators: if you have a group of customers that subscribe to a 100Mb service, and all of them suddenly switched to a 1Gb service, would you expect an increase in overall bandwidth usage? "

As someone offering up to gigabit, I wouldn’t. They don’t use what they have now, so why would they use more?

I’m sure it’s more than a 0 difference, but it isn’t statistically relevant.

That’s, however, assuming you’ve spent the money to overbuild the infrastructure in that area to support something not needed.