Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

My USF dollars at work… You’re welcome.

I’d also appreciate it if we didn’t structure the subsidies such that it doesn’t make any economic sense to provide 
services to the middle-density market.

Owen


> On May 30, 2021, at 13:56 , Blake Dunlap <ikiris () gmail com> wrote:
>
> The co op electric serving my families house in bfe tn that doesn't have either sewer or cable managed to run hard 
> fiber for dirt cheap to all their subscribers. Its clear from that the problem isnt can't, it's won't. Setting the 
> bar so low that podunk wifi 300k links that barely have more backhaul meet it only serves to limit the interest in 
> fixing the problem correctly so Darryl's wifi and plumbing doesn't have to invest more than 50 bucks for few more 
> years. We shouldn't be subsidizing ancient copper plants that are barely maintained as it is simply because 
> established companies want to collect the gov'ment dole while doing bare minimum to zero work to actually make 
> anything better because it's better for their bottom line to keep everyone's expectations firmly in the 90s or even 
> 80s.
>
> On Sun, May 30, 2021, 12:54 Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com <mailto:baldur.norddahl () gmail com>> 
> wrote:
>
>
> søn. 30. maj 2021 15.29 skrev Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net <mailto:nanog () ics-il net>>:
> What can you do with 100 megs that you can't do with 25 megs and why should anyone care?
>
> That is really the wrong question. People want 100 Mbps over 25 Mbps and therefore it becomes a need for rural 
> communities. Doesn't matter that someone believes these people could do with less.
>
> The year is 2021 and perceived good internet is minimum 100 Mbps. 
>
> Regards 
>
> Baldur