Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the maintenance of the infrastructure required to deliver those speeds exceeds what you'd 
get, IE: no return. 




What's wrong with right-sizing the infrastructure? 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "james cutler" <james.cutler () consultant com> 
To: "Mike Hammett" <nanog () ics-il net> 
Cc: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists () gmail com>, "nanog list" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:13:36 PM 
Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections 

On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett < nanog () ics-il net > wrote: 






"Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" 


In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. 
Also, a low probability that the customer cares. 



Of course, this is because the “industry” is driven short term profits and can not vision the eventual dispersion of 
remote workers begun in earnest about a year and which could result in longer term return on investment.