“However, this isn’t exactly new… Windows used to come on something like 31 3.5” floppies at one point.”
But you can still get incremental Windows Updates and don’t have to redownload Windows any time something changes.
I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But no, upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local cable company maxes out at 20Mbps upload, and AT&T stopped their FTTH deployment literally across the street from me with no signs of further expansion.
That’s true of every large game I play these days as well.
Obviously there may be game developers that remain stupid and I suggest that’s an issue to take up with them rather than an
issue that is relevant to this debate.
Owen
The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US
household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump
it to a gig or more?Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of
bandwidth?
this seems like the wrong question to ask. Or at least a short-sighted question.
One question to ask is:
“If I have to upgrade from X to 1gbps for my infrastructure over the next 5 years, what’s the outlay in capex/opex?”
followed by:
“What’s my cost recovery plan now that I know what the bill will be?”
Some of that might be USF, some might be fees from subscribers, etc.
Being a gatekeeper to what folk can do at home seems … not terrific, though.
I want decent upload speeds for offsite backups of my home NAS. But no,
upload is usually some pitiful fraction of download. The local cable
having symmetric speeds over 20mbps certainly is nice, as a user living in that world.
Yeah, upstream is a complete joke and the pandemic showed how wrong the excuses were.
Mike
Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
>> enough for anybody.
The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. 
If I were a policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and applications, I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too long a timeframe) and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR could be derived from a sample across multiple networks or countries. In practice, that would mean looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US and DS and then projecting that growth rate into future years. So if you say 35% CAGR for both US and DS and project out the commonplace need/usage then 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as follows below. If some new apps emerge that start driving something like US at a higher CAGR then future years automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.
Of course 100/10 is an arbitrary benchmark for illustrative purposes, as is the suggested 35% CAGR. I suspect that in the case of US, the Internet will see much more significant growth in US demand and that new applications will emerge to take advantage of that & further drive demand growth (similarly for low latency networking).
Jason
DS
2022 100
2023 135
2024 182
2025 246
2026 332
2027 448
2028 605
2029 817
2030 1,103
2031 1,489
2032 2,011
US
2022 10
2023 14
2024 18
2025 25
2026 33
2027 45
2028 61
2029 82
2030 110
2031 149
2032 201
/eom
Terrain has a lot to do with the service you can get. Twenty five miles west of Denver are technically foothills but it is a lot of mountainous terrain. No company wants to run any cable up there.
–John
Believe it or not, there is cable within 500 yards, but they won’t extend it. (:
Mitch
50 feet across the street from me on the east side of the road is AT&T FTTH territory. My side of the street is not. F the west side apparently.
This is common sadly. I had fiber 1200' from my house that was
unused and there may be no record of it, etc.. so it's just not possible
to happen. Same goes for areas that have long-haul fiber passing them
but can't get service.
Not everyone is that lucky, but I've seen places with 2-3 fiber
providers that pass them and none offer service.
- Jared
Sean Donelan wrote:
USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands.
Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.
That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.
Competitive providers must invest same amount of money to cover
a certain area by their cables but their revenues are proportional
to their local market shares, which means only the provider with
the largest share can survive.
In urban areas where local backbone costs, which are proportional
to market shares, exceeds cabling costs, there may be some
competitions. But, the natural regional monopoly is still
possible.
Still, providers relying on older technologies will be
competitively replaced by other providers using newer
technologies, which is why DSL providers have been
disappearing and cable providers will disappear.
In a long run, only fiber providers will survive.
The problem, then, is that, with PON, there is no local
competition even if fibers are unbundled, because,
providers with smaller share can find smaller number
of subscribers around PON splitters, as, usually,
fiber cost between the splitters and stations are
same, which is why fiber providers prefer PON over SS.
But, such preference is deadly for rural areas where
only one or two homes exist around PON splitters,
in which case, SS is less costly.
Masataka Ohta
I live pretty deep in a rural area, and there are only about 3 or 4 houses in the square mile I live in. My electric service comes from a co-op, and I’d be darn well pleased if that co-op could install and provide layer 2 service over fiber back to some local pick-up point where I could meet one or more internet providers.
AT&T has fiber running through a sidewalk box in my next door neighbors yard. Said box has a 2” conduit directly to my MPOE in my garage.
AT&T refuses to give me FTTH service or even business fiber at any price.
They claim (for reasons passing understanding) that the buildout would exceed $100,000.
All I can say is that if they pay their fiber crews that well, I should get a job pulling fiber for AT&T.
Owen
Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so.
You seem somehow surprised by this. Most of us have grown quite accustomed to it.
Owen
So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty much blew that away with video conferencing, etc.
Mike
The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect.
So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's
always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a
lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty
much blew that away with video conferencing, etc.
That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the CAGR will rise and get factored into future year projections. So if the CAGR for US goes from 35% to 75% then when you annually update the requirement and project that CAGR forward, you will have higher future BB numbers that grows the US requirement at a faster rate. That is I think the benefit to a system that uses trailing demand to forecast forward with growing year-over-year BB numbers. You can debate whether 2-year trailing CAGR is better than 1-year, but conceptually the idea is that future BB numbers should be 'indexed to inflation' - so grow year-over-year based on past actual growth rates rather than a once-a-decade BB definition that is not driven by actual demand and is arguably theoretical.
Jason
I wish (...) that public right of way agreements included a requirement that service providers must publish accurate service area maps, and must provide service (or pay a substantial penalty for each inaccurate service claim).
In the old days (...) the "certificate of publice convenience and necessity" came with a duty to offer service to all in the area. That was part of the consideration to use the public right of ways.
Now, even when you order service and obtain a confirmation, its not really a confirmation. Or ridiculous 'install fees', which are really go away fees.
Look at the difficulty the FCC and state PUCs have getting accurate service maps from carriers and service providers. Its like those wireless maps, the carriers make jokes about in TV commercials. Their own ad agencies know their own maps are bogus.
Owen DeLong wrote:
USF is great for rural, but it has turned medium density and suburban areas into connectivity wastelands.
Carrier & cable lobbying organizations say that free market competition by multiple providers provide adequate service in those areas.
That's simply untrue, because of natural regional monopoly.
Lobbyists lie? Say it isn’t so.
You seem somehow surprised by this.
No, not at all. So?
Masataka Ohta
You should recognize that Moore's law has ended.
Masataka Ohta
Look up the Broadband Data Act and the FCC BDC. This will identify what individuals have service in ~6 months.