Re: sigs wanted for a response to the fcc's NOI for faster broadband speeds

[William Herrin <bill () herrin us>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 4:55 PM Dave Taht <dave.taht () gmail com> wrote:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19ADByjakzQXCj9Re_pUvrb5Qe5OK-QmhlYRLMBY4vH4/edit
>
> Comments (and cites) welcomed also! The text is still somewhat in flux...

Hi Dave,

You start off with a decent thesis - beyond 100mbps there really isn't
any difference in capability, not for residential use. Just a
difference in how quickly some tasks complete. It's not like the
difference between 768kbps and 10 mbps where one does streaming video
and conferencing while the other does not.

But then you get lost in latency. Latency is important but it's only
one in a laundry list of things that make the difference between
quality and trash in Internet services.

* Packet loss.

* Service outages. I have a buddy whose phone line has been out for
days four times this year. His ILEC neither wants to maintain the
copper lines nor install fiber that deep in the woods, so they keep
doing mediocre repairs to the infrastructure that don't hold up.

* Incomplete connectivity (e.g. Cogent and IPv6).

Personally, I'd love to see rulemaking to the effect that only folks
with -open- peering policies are eligible for government funds and
contracts. But that's my pet peeve, like latency is yours. And if I
pitch that, it'll rightly be seen as a pet issue.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin
bill () herrin us
https://bill.herrin.us/