Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Mike Lyon <mike.lyon () gmail com>]

Curious, when you look at the usage on those 100/100 plans. What are they
actually using? If they aren't actually using it, then why up the minimum?

If they are on a 100/100 and the majority of the folks don't use a 10th of
that throughput, why make it 100 if it's not actually being used? If it's
not actually being used, why don't we just make the minimum 10G or 100G
since it appears we are arbitrarily pulling random numbers out of our asses
for "minimums?"

-Mike


On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 3:23 PM Brandon Price <PriceB () sherwoodoregon gov>
wrote:

> 100/100 minimum for sure.
>
> In our small neck of the woods, we are currently doing 250/250 for $45 and
> 1000/1000 for $60 no data caps.
>
> We have lost some grants on rural builds because "someone" in the census
> block claims they provide broadband.. Not hard to put an AP up on a tower
> and hit the current definition's upload speed.
>
> I get a chuckle when the providers tell the customer what they "need"...
>
>
> Brandon Price
> Senior Network Engineer
> City of Sherwood, Sherwood Broadband
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+priceb=sherwoodoregon.gov () nanog org> On Behalf
> Of Sean Donelan
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 5:33 PM
> To: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you are expecting this email and/or
> know the content is safe.
>
>
> On Thu, 27 May 2021, Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE wrote:
> > At least 100/100.
> >
> > We don’t like selling slower than 10g anymore, that’s what I’d start
> everyone at if I could.
>
>
> At $50/month or less?
>
> Maximize number of households of all demographic groups.

-- 
Mike Lyon
mike.lyon () gmail com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon