Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Edward McNair <emcnair () nanog org>]

I have a home in rural Washington state, and my access was definetly substandard. I had to bond together multiple 
internet services to have a somewhat modern internet experience. I now have a Starlink's service, which has given me 
more robust speeds. That said, their service still has a ways to go to ensure stable connectivity at all hours of the 
day. Their satellite coverage is currently still spotty.

Edward

> On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:50 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 2021, at 02:10 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/2/21 11:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree… If it could be forced into a standardized format using a standardized approach to data acquisition and 
> > > reliable comparable results across providers, it could be a very useful adjunct to real competition.
> >
> > If we can't even agree on what "minimum speed for U.S. broadband connections" actually means, fat chance having a 
> > "nutritional facts" at the back of the "Internet in a tea cup" dropped off at your door step.
> >
> > I'm not saying it's not useful, I'm just saying that easily goes down the "what color should we use for the bike 
> > shed" territory, while people in rural America still have no or poor Internet access.
> >
> > Mark.
>
> ROFLMAO…
>
> People in Rural America seem to be doing just fine. Most of the ones I know at least have GPON or better.
>
> Meanwhile, here in San Jose, a city that bills itself as “The Capital of Silicon Valley”, the best I can get is 
> Comcast (which does finally purport to be Gig down), but rarely delivers that.
>
> Yes, anything involving the federal government will get the full bike shed treatment no matter what we do.
>
> There are plenty of urban and suburban areas in America that are far worse off from a broadband perspective than 
> “rural America”.
>
> Owen