Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-has-a-lot-to-lose-if-municipal-broadband-takes-off/
130 comments
Just as long as they don't bust them up like they did AT&T. Following the same model used overseas might make more sense. Semi-natural[1] monopolies tend to form for providing access networks. We see this with power, water, gas distribution too. Over building multiple networks costs a lot more than having one good network.
The correct response IMO is:
1. Don't block municipal broadband or new commercial providers, there should be no _forced_ monopoly.
2. Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network and the services on top. The wholesale access networks offer the same regulated (cost+) terms to any ISP/service provider who wants to reach customers on that network. Now the ISP/TV component of Comcast has to compete on the same terms as any other ISP/TV provider using that access network.
[1] I say semi-natural because in the US they're not natural but regulated and there has been a fair amount of overbuilding in cherry-picked areas.
The correct response IMO is:
1. Don't block municipal broadband or new commercial providers, there should be no _forced_ monopoly.
2. Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network and the services on top. The wholesale access networks offer the same regulated (cost+) terms to any ISP/service provider who wants to reach customers on that network. Now the ISP/TV component of Comcast has to compete on the same terms as any other ISP/TV provider using that access network.
[1] I say semi-natural because in the US they're not natural but regulated and there has been a fair amount of overbuilding in cherry-picked areas.
I argue going one step further, even at the loss of some theoretical efficiency.
Split layer 1 from layer 3. I want a fiber pair from my house to the central office, where I can then patch to any provider who decided to pay the cost-recovery based co-location connection fee. Basically I should be able to tell this wireline provider to plug my patch cord into service provider X and they do it within a reasonable timeframe. I pay this provider for the wire itself.
I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further.
Yes, this does create a middle man agency and relatively inefficient physical infrastructure (e.g. I'd be pretty anti-GPON or similar tech for this use for a variety of reasons) so in theory prices would be more. However I think if you could get back to an environment where ISPs can compete on a wide variety of merits like in the late 90's dialup ISP days you would see overall price decreases.
It would also allow for the creation of "boutique" local ISPs that can cater to certain crowds. The highly technical crowd who is happy to pay more for a clear channel ping and pipe and no other BS will be able to find a home, just like grandma who needs a cheap nicely filtered/secured internet to check her e-mail and use facetime. Basically allow for a bunch of sonic.net style ISPs to compete in most markets.
Anything short of this I think just devolves into both stagnation and rent-seeking. Even municipal provided broadband would be subject to this - many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.
Split layer 1 from layer 3. I want a fiber pair from my house to the central office, where I can then patch to any provider who decided to pay the cost-recovery based co-location connection fee. Basically I should be able to tell this wireline provider to plug my patch cord into service provider X and they do it within a reasonable timeframe. I pay this provider for the wire itself.
I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further.
Yes, this does create a middle man agency and relatively inefficient physical infrastructure (e.g. I'd be pretty anti-GPON or similar tech for this use for a variety of reasons) so in theory prices would be more. However I think if you could get back to an environment where ISPs can compete on a wide variety of merits like in the late 90's dialup ISP days you would see overall price decreases.
It would also allow for the creation of "boutique" local ISPs that can cater to certain crowds. The highly technical crowd who is happy to pay more for a clear channel ping and pipe and no other BS will be able to find a home, just like grandma who needs a cheap nicely filtered/secured internet to check her e-mail and use facetime. Basically allow for a bunch of sonic.net style ISPs to compete in most markets.
Anything short of this I think just devolves into both stagnation and rent-seeking. Even municipal provided broadband would be subject to this - many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.
Having helped shepherd municipal broadband initiatives along, I'm sorry to say that your requirements are a hill too far for almost all consumers. They don't care about the level of provider selection you want, they simply want The Internet (Netflix, Youtube, Google Gmail, et al) at the lowest possible cost (and reliable to boot).
> many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.
Municipal broadband is accountable to its local citizens or stakeholders, depending on the model used to develop it (government owned or non-profit owned). If it languishes, it will only do so because its citizens or users allow it to.
EDIT: If you're in an area where there are only large corporate internet providers, please take up the cause for municipal or co-op broadband!
https://muninetworks.org/
> many networks will likely be built out and then left to languish long-term if there is no competitive pressure.
Municipal broadband is accountable to its local citizens or stakeholders, depending on the model used to develop it (government owned or non-profit owned). If it languishes, it will only do so because its citizens or users allow it to.
EDIT: If you're in an area where there are only large corporate internet providers, please take up the cause for municipal or co-op broadband!
https://muninetworks.org/
> Municipal broadband is accountable to its local citizens or stakeholders, depending on the model used to develop it (government owned or non-profit owned). If it languishes, it will only do so because its citizens or users allow it to.
I don't find this comforting. Citizens regularly allow public services to languish, through a combination of a myopic focus on cutting costs/taxes and lack of accountability. When I lived in Wilmington, Delaware, bus drivers would straight up quit 20 minutes early, putting up their "out of service sign" and skipping their last several stops. I drive all the way into work even though there is an Orange-line Metro stop 20 minutes from my house and 5 minutes from my office. The scheduled 36-minute trip is almost never under 40 minutes, and during commuting times approaches 50 minutes. That's without unexpected delays.
One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure.
I don't find this comforting. Citizens regularly allow public services to languish, through a combination of a myopic focus on cutting costs/taxes and lack of accountability. When I lived in Wilmington, Delaware, bus drivers would straight up quit 20 minutes early, putting up their "out of service sign" and skipping their last several stops. I drive all the way into work even though there is an Orange-line Metro stop 20 minutes from my house and 5 minutes from my office. The scheduled 36-minute trip is almost never under 40 minutes, and during commuting times approaches 50 minutes. That's without unexpected delays.
One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure.
As someone who has worked in the telcom regulation space, what would your suggestion be? I find my options more palatable than a duopoly (if you're lucky!) that exists to squeeze consumers for as many dollars as possible. It all boils down to accountability and the tools at your disposal to enforce that accountability. Unless the FCC is going to turn the screws on major internet providers (unlikely under the current administration), local governance is one of the few options left available.
> One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure.
I agree this is a problem that takes a lot of effort on the part of elected officials to be honest with citizens about why money must be spent to maintain infrastructure, while ensuring that collected tax revenue is spent in a transparent and effective manner. Letting infrastructure go is simply robbing from the future; the bills come due eventually.
> One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure.
I agree this is a problem that takes a lot of effort on the part of elected officials to be honest with citizens about why money must be spent to maintain infrastructure, while ensuring that collected tax revenue is spent in a transparent and effective manner. Letting infrastructure go is simply robbing from the future; the bills come due eventually.
Don't get the wrong idea: I'm not opposed to municipal broadband. I was just pointing out that citizen accountability often doesn't do anything to prevent poor service quality. (As we speak, I'm getting a stream of MARC delay/cancellation text messages.)
If we were starting from scratch, I'd advocate for the Stockholm model: https://www.stokab.se/Documents/Stockholms%20Stokab%20-%20A%.... A public entity to build dark fiber that isn't taxpayer supported and builds out based on demand and profitability rather than mandates. That ship has sailed, however.
I do think the FCC should preempt all state-and-local franchising laws, and also state-and-local restrictions on municipal broadband. Private providers can compete in areas and neighborhoods that support competition (my neighborhood has two providers for gigabit fiber, for example), and municipalities can address areas that are overlooked by the private sector.
If we were starting from scratch, I'd advocate for the Stockholm model: https://www.stokab.se/Documents/Stockholms%20Stokab%20-%20A%.... A public entity to build dark fiber that isn't taxpayer supported and builds out based on demand and profitability rather than mandates. That ship has sailed, however.
I do think the FCC should preempt all state-and-local franchising laws, and also state-and-local restrictions on municipal broadband. Private providers can compete in areas and neighborhoods that support competition (my neighborhood has two providers for gigabit fiber, for example), and municipalities can address areas that are overlooked by the private sector.
I appreciate the reply!
> I do think the FCC should preempt all state-and-local franchising laws, and also state-and-local restrictions on municipal broadband. Private providers can compete in areas and neighborhoods that support competition (my neighborhood has two providers for gigabit fiber, for example), and municipalities can address areas that are overlooked by the private sector.
My concern with this is if you don't mandate covering all neighborhoods, private providers will cherrypick the most profitable areas, leaving less well off areas underserved or not served at all. A great example is the US Postal Service: you can't compete against them, and in return, they service absolutely every address in the United States.
> I do think the FCC should preempt all state-and-local franchising laws, and also state-and-local restrictions on municipal broadband. Private providers can compete in areas and neighborhoods that support competition (my neighborhood has two providers for gigabit fiber, for example), and municipalities can address areas that are overlooked by the private sector.
My concern with this is if you don't mandate covering all neighborhoods, private providers will cherrypick the most profitable areas, leaving less well off areas underserved or not served at all. A great example is the US Postal Service: you can't compete against them, and in return, they service absolutely every address in the United States.
> My concern with this is if you don't mandate covering all neighborhoods, private providers will cherrypick the most profitable areas, leaving less well off areas underserved or not served at all.
That's fine. It's the government's job to step in and provide the safety net. Look at what Sweden did with fiber in rural areas. Instead of forcing companies to serve rural customers in return for the right to serve urban ones, the government simply gave a tax credit to rural residents to defray the costs of building fiber.
With the emergence of 5G wireless, it becomes much more practical for the government to be "the ISP of last resort."
That's fine. It's the government's job to step in and provide the safety net. Look at what Sweden did with fiber in rural areas. Instead of forcing companies to serve rural customers in return for the right to serve urban ones, the government simply gave a tax credit to rural residents to defray the costs of building fiber.
With the emergence of 5G wireless, it becomes much more practical for the government to be "the ISP of last resort."
> One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure.
Err. That just seems like it’s the fault of the regulators refusing to do their jobs these days. (And also because the regulators have been declawed and coopted by industry.)
If you have a regulation that says “water must be clean” and then the regulator doesn’t test or fine or force the municipality to fix it then that’s where the problem lays. The idea that somehow a private water company would be better is absurd in this example, why because the citizen who you’re blaming for not upgrading the water supply would somehow chose to go with another water supply provider who was cleaner?
Err. That just seems like it’s the fault of the regulators refusing to do their jobs these days. (And also because the regulators have been declawed and coopted by industry.)
If you have a regulation that says “water must be clean” and then the regulator doesn’t test or fine or force the municipality to fix it then that’s where the problem lays. The idea that somehow a private water company would be better is absurd in this example, why because the citizen who you’re blaming for not upgrading the water supply would somehow chose to go with another water supply provider who was cleaner?
These are municipal water utilities. The EPA can't force municipalities to raise water rates. And imposing fines on already cash-strapped entities would result in political disaster if anything bad happened.
"One of the things the environmental law clinic at Northwestern does is identify municipal water/sewer systems that are not in compliance with the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. There are many such systems, and invariably they remain out of compliance because citizens are unwilling to raise water/sewer rates to fix the infrastructure."
Well, why should they have to? The main purpose of the water/sewer company is to provide service in compliance with that act. If costs have risen due to the natural order of things, that's one thing. But in many cases, it seems like the maintenance has been neglected on purpose, in order to benefit shareholders. And now you want me to pay more to do what you should have been doing in the first damn place?
Well, why should they have to? The main purpose of the water/sewer company is to provide service in compliance with that act. If costs have risen due to the natural order of things, that's one thing. But in many cases, it seems like the maintenance has been neglected on purpose, in order to benefit shareholders. And now you want me to pay more to do what you should have been doing in the first damn place?
You're right that a lot of the cost increases is due to maintenance that has been neglected over the years. You're wrong in blaming shareholders--almost all U.S. water/sewer systems are run by municipal utilities. Taxpayers are shortsighted too, perhaps even more so than shareholders. Because water/sewer rates are subject to public regulation, there is a huge push to keep rates low. Consequently, needed upgrades (e.g. replacing lead water pipes) and general maintenance fall by the wayside.
I understand that most consumers don't understand, or don't care or whatever, but it's so frustrating.
The internet is not a dumb pipe -- making the right routing decisions and connections in the right places makes things better. On the other hand, the last mile is actually a place where things can be pretty dumb (fair allocation of shared mediums not withstanding).
I would love to pay an ISP for better routing and transit, but I can't afford to pay them for overbuilding in an area already served by a phone company and a cable company. I don't expect a municipality to spend the time and effort to get great routing and transit either; I expect they'll get service from one, maybe two big transit providers, and maybe network appliances from Google and Netflix, and call it a day.
The internet is not a dumb pipe -- making the right routing decisions and connections in the right places makes things better. On the other hand, the last mile is actually a place where things can be pretty dumb (fair allocation of shared mediums not withstanding).
I would love to pay an ISP for better routing and transit, but I can't afford to pay them for overbuilding in an area already served by a phone company and a cable company. I don't expect a municipality to spend the time and effort to get great routing and transit either; I expect they'll get service from one, maybe two big transit providers, and maybe network appliances from Google and Netflix, and call it a day.
Internet is dumb if you make it so. Like Chinese totalitarianism government did. They even build national firewalls.
If you allow private entities to freely monopolize, then they will make them complicated. Do you forget how ula executive being fires because he admit cost cannot match spacex?
If you allow private entities to freely monopolize, then they will make them complicated. Do you forget how ula executive being fires because he admit cost cannot match spacex?
"Having helped shepherd municipal broadband initiatives along, I'm sorry to say that your requirements are a hill too far for almost all consumers. They don't care about the level of provider selection you want, they simply want The Internet (Netflix, Youtube, Google Gmail, et al) at the lowest possible cost (and reliable to boot)."
I feel this is really only because there's been no real competition in this space at all. There's been one phone company, one cable company, and that was it. Compared to other markets where there is some semblance of competition, and you see the comparison shopping behavior. I don't really see why it couldn't translate to internet access, given time.
I feel this is really only because there's been no real competition in this space at all. There's been one phone company, one cable company, and that was it. Compared to other markets where there is some semblance of competition, and you see the comparison shopping behavior. I don't really see why it couldn't translate to internet access, given time.
> Split layer 1 from layer 3. I want a fiber pair from my house to the central office, where I can then patch to any provider who decided to pay the cost-recovery based co-location connection fee. Basically I should be able to tell this wireline provider to plug my patch cord into service provider X and they do it within a reasonable timeframe. I pay this provider for the wire itself.
> I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further.
This is exactly how DSL worked, with ILECs being forced to sell wire access to CLECs. Many places were still not served by a CLEC.
The answer for keeping things competitive and modern is probably both. The physical infrastructure companies should provide dark fiber, which will be demanded if there is high enough population density to independently invest in the gear to light or even for individual businesses with special requirements. They should also provide aggregation through their own edge switches, so that less-dense places can experience provider-competition at regional meet-me centers.
> I then get provider #2 and subscribe to their IP services. Hopefully there would be enough competition (e.g. dozens) here to not have to regulate further.
This is exactly how DSL worked, with ILECs being forced to sell wire access to CLECs. Many places were still not served by a CLEC.
The answer for keeping things competitive and modern is probably both. The physical infrastructure companies should provide dark fiber, which will be demanded if there is high enough population density to independently invest in the gear to light or even for individual businesses with special requirements. They should also provide aggregation through their own edge switches, so that less-dense places can experience provider-competition at regional meet-me centers.
>Split access providers up into two: the wholesale access network
This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerable to voters rather than taxpayers (the exception being when the privatization playbook is being followed: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... ).
This should be municipally owned, too. Monopolies almost always function better when answerable to voters rather than taxpayers (the exception being when the privatization playbook is being followed: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/tsa-as-example-of-pr... ).
I would prefer the wholesale network to be owned by the communities or states but I don’t see it being a completely necessary starting point.
For example it would be relatively simple to craft a law that requires this split for all such telecommunications access networks regardless of existing or new builds or cable vs copper vs fiber. Immediately that would level the playing field because Comcast has to sell access on its network to itself at the same price it sells it to another ISP.
For example it would be relatively simple to craft a law that requires this split for all such telecommunications access networks regardless of existing or new builds or cable vs copper vs fiber. Immediately that would level the playing field because Comcast has to sell access on its network to itself at the same price it sells it to another ISP.
We did craft a law: Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.
The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.
The implementation of the unbundling rules was "disastrous" (according to the center-left Brookings Institute: www.pff.org/events/eventpowerpoints/022207BrusselsComm/Crandall.ppt, see slide 3). Unbundling can work, but requires a steady hand in setting rates. The FCC said "screw telcos" and set rates very low, which made telecos basically give up on improving their DSL infrastructure. In contrast, unbundling has worked well in the U.K. There, the government put in place a rate structure that allowed BT OpenReach (the entity that owns all the phone lines) to actually be comparable in profitability to Comcast or TWC.
Comcast should have been allowed to vertically integrate the way they have.
It’s hard to imagine what more incompetent than Comcast would look like, the dial is already at 9 or 10 for troubleshooting their own internal technical problems with home internet service, they happily leave you for weeks without service, lose your billing info and not notify you, typo MACs ad tell you to physically visit their office to fix backend typos.
Agree, in most places the cable company has a monopoly or close to it. But why do we think giving the municipality a monopoly is better?
Every municipal service I can think of is overstaffed and inefficient compared to private businesses.
The "nickle and diming" is just moved to tax rates and fees that are under the radar for most people.
Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised.
Every municipal service I can think of is overstaffed and inefficient compared to private businesses.
The "nickle and diming" is just moved to tax rates and fees that are under the radar for most people.
Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised.
People can vote to change the leadership and direction of the municipality. Not so much the corporation.
Yes I realize this argument wears thinner the more democracy gets weakened... and hey, weird, the ones weakening it are the same few people (Comcast in this case) who stand to profit from weakening it. Just a coincidence I'm sure!
Anyway you're not helping democracy either, by giving up on it and/or buying into the whole "the market will fix everything" idea.
Free markets would be great, but what you find instead is that those who want to exploit a given market, sell everybody on the idea that "the market will fix everything" when they want to enter it. But after that, they do everything in their power to make sure it's NOT a free market. They want to avoid dealing with competitors, so they work to keep them out of the market. But unfortunately competition is the precondition on which most of the "market will fix everything" argument rests.
Yes I realize this argument wears thinner the more democracy gets weakened... and hey, weird, the ones weakening it are the same few people (Comcast in this case) who stand to profit from weakening it. Just a coincidence I'm sure!
Anyway you're not helping democracy either, by giving up on it and/or buying into the whole "the market will fix everything" idea.
Free markets would be great, but what you find instead is that those who want to exploit a given market, sell everybody on the idea that "the market will fix everything" when they want to enter it. But after that, they do everything in their power to make sure it's NOT a free market. They want to avoid dealing with competitors, so they work to keep them out of the market. But unfortunately competition is the precondition on which most of the "market will fix everything" argument rests.
> Just cancel the franchises and let the market compete for internet service. I think you'd be surprised.
We should make franchising requirements illegal at the federal level. There is no need for them, and all they do is artificially limit competition. Even though the franchises are, by law, non-exclusive, the terms for getting a franchise are usually onerous enough that nobody but the incumbent is willing to put up with them.
We should make franchising requirements illegal at the federal level. There is no need for them, and all they do is artificially limit competition. Even though the franchises are, by law, non-exclusive, the terms for getting a franchise are usually onerous enough that nobody but the incumbent is willing to put up with them.
That's not entirely true. There is a very good reason for some of them: To ensure that lower income areas are serviced. Usually, a municipality will make servicing those areas a requirement of getting the franchise.
Now, if we have municipal broadband, that could ensure lower income areas are serviced instead. But without that fallback, cancelling franchise agreements would likely increase competition in the rich neighborhoods, and lead to things being just as bad or worse than they are now in poor ones.
Now, if we have municipal broadband, that could ensure lower income areas are serviced instead. But without that fallback, cancelling franchise agreements would likely increase competition in the rich neighborhoods, and lead to things being just as bad or worse than they are now in poor ones.
It's not a good reason. If you force private companies to take on the government's role of providing a safety net, you're basically guaranteeing that only mega-corps will be able to take that deal. It would be better, as you suggest, to let municipalities perform the traditional governmental role of building the safety net.
Considering municipal is not an option in most of the country, franchise agreements are the only other way.
Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-law.... Even out of the 21 states that do have restrictions, most don't create really major impediments. E.g. in Pennsylvania:
> [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network.
Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
> [C]ities need to approach their current ISP with a detailed broadband plan. The ISP then has 60 days to take that plan and implement it or reject it. If the company agrees to take the plan, it has a year to build it out. If the plan is turned down, the city is free to build its own network.
Out of the 10 most populous states, only three have significant restrictions on municipal broadband and none have an outright ban. I think the FCC should preempt all such restrictions, but it's kind of a cop-out to say that laws like these are why municipal broadband is so rare.
> Most states don't have any restrictions on municipal broadband:
Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...
Well, they don't until municipalities actually try to start a program. Witness Tennesse a couple of years ago: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/tennessee-kills-...
No, I don't think the laws are most of the reason why it's rare. It's probably more that other municipalities have seen the huge fights put up by the incumbents that tie the projects up in legal battles for years that have had a chilling effect on it. Citizens know that it's going to cost a lot for the infrastructure, and then probably a lot more for the legal fights.
Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
Sadly, many of them don't seem to see what a success most of it is.
What's the market incentive to provide service in lower income, inner-city neighborhoods?
Comcast and CenturyLink: You've shown you do not want to invest in fiber to the home, so you don't have any right to stop the city from doing it.
I don't hate Comcast as much as others, but I'm really looking forward to Fort Collins starting the process of doing municipal fiber.
Comcast and CenturyLink have neglected upgrading infrastructure for decades, and so if they aren't going to do it I don't see why the city shouldn't. Comcast at least has a reasonable service, CenturyLink tops out at 40Mbps at my home.
CenturyLink is particularly culpable because they received $2B in taxes to roll out fiber to the home by the year 2000, and did little if anything for that money. I've never even known anyone who has QWest/CenturyLink FTTH.
They are just sitting on a bunch of copper twisted pair, hoping to get as much money as they can without any investment in new technology.
Even back in the last '90s they had that attitude. They refused to deploy DSL concentrators in neighborhoods, because that would open the pedestals to CLECs to put gear into. So instead they required all DSL runs to go to one of the two Fort Collins Central Offices. A huge amount of the city was un-served because they were more than 18K feet from a CO.
I don't hate Comcast as much as others, but I'm really looking forward to Fort Collins starting the process of doing municipal fiber.
Comcast and CenturyLink have neglected upgrading infrastructure for decades, and so if they aren't going to do it I don't see why the city shouldn't. Comcast at least has a reasonable service, CenturyLink tops out at 40Mbps at my home.
CenturyLink is particularly culpable because they received $2B in taxes to roll out fiber to the home by the year 2000, and did little if anything for that money. I've never even known anyone who has QWest/CenturyLink FTTH.
They are just sitting on a bunch of copper twisted pair, hoping to get as much money as they can without any investment in new technology.
Even back in the last '90s they had that attitude. They refused to deploy DSL concentrators in neighborhoods, because that would open the pedestals to CLECs to put gear into. So instead they required all DSL runs to go to one of the two Fort Collins Central Offices. A huge amount of the city was un-served because they were more than 18K feet from a CO.
I am a recovering Comcast customer of 10+ years, and while CentiryLink is nearly as incompetent on the customer service front, they pulled fiber down my block a year ago and my gigabit connection is a glorious thing (it's 2/3rds the monthly cost of Comcast, for 5X the speed, symmetrical).
I just had to take the opposite jump. I was very happy with my uncapped gigabit symmetrical connection from Centurylink, but my new address is only serviced by Comcast. I'm paying less, but once the promo expires it won't be by much, for a 1TB capped 200/10 connection.
I want my Centurylink fiber back :(
I want my Centurylink fiber back :(
CenturyLink has finally rolled out fiber to my home (Seattle area). It's taken a long damn time and until they did, they weren't remotely competitive with Comcast. But now I get about 600 Mbps down and 900 Mbps up for $100/mo, which beats Comcast slightly.
What will you do with all that power? I've been on 200+mbps subscriptions for a couple years (in practice at least over 100), and I've never needed more.
Not much. In Seattle, there's no middle ground between 160/10 mbit from Comcast at $80/mo and gigabit from Centurylink at $100/mo. The latter seems like better value, plus I'd like to give a big middle finger to Comcast for their 15 year monopoly in the region.
It does make multi-GB downloads really nice and fast, a few seconds.
It does make multi-GB downloads really nice and fast, a few seconds.
Best phone call I've made in the past few years was canceling my ~$100 Comcast internet plan in favor of my municipality's $50 gigabit plan. A year in and haven't had so much as a hiccup in service.
Same. I’d rather pay $300/month for municipal if it supports efforts to also make it available to my other neighbors, makes the program more successful (and thus more likely to continue) and I’d set up my own equipment volunteer to help them install.
Actually, I’m going right now to see if there are any municipal broadband efforts in my area that I could throw money at / help out with. Is there some good place to find out more about efforts in _____ area? Sadly, like many in the Bay Area, I live in an apartment with a Comcast community manager, so we’d likely be the very last to get off of Comcast unless some great wireless tech becomes viable (and even then, we’re not allowed to have any external antennas mounted outside of our units).
Actually, I’m going right now to see if there are any municipal broadband efforts in my area that I could throw money at / help out with. Is there some good place to find out more about efforts in _____ area? Sadly, like many in the Bay Area, I live in an apartment with a Comcast community manager, so we’d likely be the very last to get off of Comcast unless some great wireless tech becomes viable (and even then, we’re not allowed to have any external antennas mounted outside of our units).
Someone else in the comments here mentioned this site:
https://muninetworks.org
https://muninetworks.org
I have Comcast and I WFH and at least once per month I have a daytime outage of several hours. They're response is usually, "it'll be back up soon, goodbye."
I would pay MORE to have municipal internet if I didn't have to put up with Comcast anymore.
I would pay MORE to have municipal internet if I didn't have to put up with Comcast anymore.
Assuming the connection is reliable, I'd pay double the price for half the speed if it meant I got to call Spectrum and tell them where to put their plan.
I'm switching to RCN this weekend because I just realized it's the same price as my current service except gigabit instead of my current 150 mbps plan. I'm not sure why I never looked into it before. Sadly it's not municipal, but it's still better than throwing money away on Comcast.
I moved to a new apartment and made the switch as well (Previously had comcast/verizon/cox/century link). RCN has been excellent in Chicago. $45/month for Gigabit internet and other BS charges. Customer service is also the best. I called them because they charged me an installation fee by accident and waived it immediately no questions asked. Can't honestly ask for any better than that.
Which city are you in?
And our society has much to gain. Comcast was a media distribution company. The Internet is a primary competitor. Permitting them to have such control is insane. If it were a regulated public utility with cost tied directly to cost of providing the service with universal access requirements like phone service, the benefit to society would be gigantic. Day 1 we could save billions by closing tons of government offices and having the workers work from home. Small businesses could host their own stuff. Connections would be synchronous and charged on use, making access dirt cheap for everybody.
I researched it awhile back, whether the social benefit would outweigh the social harm by eliminating "competition" is the criteria used to decide if something should be a utility and with Internet it's a no brainer.
I researched it awhile back, whether the social benefit would outweigh the social harm by eliminating "competition" is the criteria used to decide if something should be a utility and with Internet it's a no brainer.
Maybe I'm being dramatic but I think Comcast's value would tank if accessible broadband alternatives existed in markets they dominate. They are one of the most hated companies that I know of. When I heard corporations were funding opposition to Philly's compensation history law I correctly assumed Comcast was leading it. They are just unlikable on so many levels.
Good. Internet access is more and more a utility like water and electricity. Municipal broadband in my town works great and is more than 100x the speed of comcast at a cheaper price.
As another poster said, would you want Comcast providing water to your neighborhood?
As another poster said, would you want Comcast providing water to your neighborhood?
[deleted]
I think people misunderstand Comcast. They're arguably more in the business of retailing/financial services than anything having to do with TCP/IP or DOCSIS.
Americans as a whole are horrible at managing money. They don't pay their bills on time, have tons of credit card debt, etc. This isn't my opinion, it's cold hard reality: look at the subprime crisis, debt burden, charge-offs/delinquencies, etc. Frankly, the crowd reading this website is just way out of touch with the reality of the situation.
For municipalities where people are responsible and there's a real sense of community, sure, do municipal broadband. I'm sure it works sometimes, but for my money, I'd rather pay the extra $5-10/month and not have to be a bill collector to my neighbor. I pay $40/month for 50Mbps Comcast and I'm fine with it.
Americans as a whole are horrible at managing money. They don't pay their bills on time, have tons of credit card debt, etc. This isn't my opinion, it's cold hard reality: look at the subprime crisis, debt burden, charge-offs/delinquencies, etc. Frankly, the crowd reading this website is just way out of touch with the reality of the situation.
For municipalities where people are responsible and there's a real sense of community, sure, do municipal broadband. I'm sure it works sometimes, but for my money, I'd rather pay the extra $5-10/month and not have to be a bill collector to my neighbor. I pay $40/month for 50Mbps Comcast and I'm fine with it.
Ah yes, the old municipal-services-every-citizen-is-a-bill-collector model. That reminds me, I'll need to go and kneecap my neighbor over his unpaid sewer bill tonight. I expect municipal internet as a utility will nearly double the amount of citizen bill collecting I need to perform.
I have literally no idea how you could have reached the idea that you would be an indentured servant/bill collector. Is this some sort of post-truth propaganda?
I understand why people are greying out that comment. On the other hand, the idea that municipal services lead residents to literally collect payment from their neighbors is such a novel complaint that I'd love to hear more details.
eldavido- can you give some more information about any news stories that cover this happening?
eldavido- can you give some more information about any news stories that cover this happening?
I'm not saying anyone is collecting bills from their neighbors. I think people are reading my comment a lot more literally than I intended.
What I'm saying is that, we have large-scale utilities like power and water companies that are able to provide individual, metered service to households over a geographically distributed area. In order to to this, there is a large amount of unpleasant, schleppy work required that most analyses of smaller-scale alternatives conveniently sweep under the rug.
Either we assume (a) another large-scale operator will provide broadband, which will probably be something like Comcast (maybe not), or (b) it will be done at a smaller scale, say, a company for 1000 residences. Does (b) actually exist?
What I'm saying is that, we have large-scale utilities like power and water companies that are able to provide individual, metered service to households over a geographically distributed area. In order to to this, there is a large amount of unpleasant, schleppy work required that most analyses of smaller-scale alternatives conveniently sweep under the rug.
Either we assume (a) another large-scale operator will provide broadband, which will probably be something like Comcast (maybe not), or (b) it will be done at a smaller scale, say, a company for 1000 residences. Does (b) actually exist?
Why assume anything?
Chattanooga's municipal broadband exists and delivers speeds as fast as any in the U.S. Salisbury, NC has a municipal broadband service that was grandfathered in before the state law banning municipal broadband.
As far as b: I live in a small town that started a municipal wireless service after Wheeler's FCC tried to override the state law banning it. Fast, affordable, symmetric. I didn't attend the meeting but am certain a clear and detailed cost-benefit analysis was presented and voted on (as well as being made available to the public per state law).
Chattanooga's municipal broadband exists and delivers speeds as fast as any in the U.S. Salisbury, NC has a municipal broadband service that was grandfathered in before the state law banning municipal broadband.
As far as b: I live in a small town that started a municipal wireless service after Wheeler's FCC tried to override the state law banning it. Fast, affordable, symmetric. I didn't attend the meeting but am certain a clear and detailed cost-benefit analysis was presented and voted on (as well as being made available to the public per state law).
Interesting. Care to tell me a little more? How many people live in your town? Is it a socially cohesive place? What would people qualified enough to run the ISP do if not work at the ISP?
I always think of that last point (what else would people do) when people mention how "the Soviet Union had such great math teachers OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US". The US has SILICON VALLEY, hedge funds, world-class universities, etc. - US primary/secondary ed has to compete with these places for talent and frankly, they often lose.
I have a hard time believing that a small operator could offer anything that stacks up against Comcast product-, service- and price-wise, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong about this. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical ;)
I always think of that last point (what else would people do) when people mention how "the Soviet Union had such great math teachers OMG WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US". The US has SILICON VALLEY, hedge funds, world-class universities, etc. - US primary/secondary ed has to compete with these places for talent and frankly, they often lose.
I have a hard time believing that a small operator could offer anything that stacks up against Comcast product-, service- and price-wise, but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong about this. Maybe I shouldn't be so cynical ;)
Come on dude, be nice.
All I'm saying is that, whenever people complain about Comcast, it's inevitably about some problem with either their network, or customer service.
Comcast is a huge, scaled organization that deals with "the public". They deal with people who don't pay. They follow up when bills get lost. They deal with people who forget to return their routers. They provide level-1 tech support for people who accidentally switch their modems off and call to complain. They handle shitty premises wiring problems induced by home DIYers who crimp RG-6 connectors with pliers. They handle support cases where people spill Coke on their routers and complain that it "stopped working".
All I'm saying is, it's just incredibly naive to look at the problem of an ISP as just "network operations". Like, we can build/operate a better network=profit. That's an incredibly naive view that neglects all the ancillary work of premises provisioning, bill/payment management, 24/7 customer support, pretty much the entire "customer" side of running a large-scale retail ISP.
I mean really, what is "community broadband"? Are we just going to magically assume that, because we aren't dealing with Comcast, all of this work will somehow magic itself away? I don't get it.
All I'm saying is that, whenever people complain about Comcast, it's inevitably about some problem with either their network, or customer service.
Comcast is a huge, scaled organization that deals with "the public". They deal with people who don't pay. They follow up when bills get lost. They deal with people who forget to return their routers. They provide level-1 tech support for people who accidentally switch their modems off and call to complain. They handle shitty premises wiring problems induced by home DIYers who crimp RG-6 connectors with pliers. They handle support cases where people spill Coke on their routers and complain that it "stopped working".
All I'm saying is, it's just incredibly naive to look at the problem of an ISP as just "network operations". Like, we can build/operate a better network=profit. That's an incredibly naive view that neglects all the ancillary work of premises provisioning, bill/payment management, 24/7 customer support, pretty much the entire "customer" side of running a large-scale retail ISP.
I mean really, what is "community broadband"? Are we just going to magically assume that, because we aren't dealing with Comcast, all of this work will somehow magic itself away? I don't get it.
Good. Municipal broadband is only a thing because Comcast services are terribly below par
Some communities aren't profitable to serve with broadband. The first municipal broadband efforts I was aware of were created because no commercial ISPs wanted to compete in an area.
Broadband, like water and electricity, is a natural monopoly - there's only so much room on the poles, and there's significant economies of scale by having everyone in a neighborhood connected to the same infrastructure.
I hope that Municipal broadband becomes more available and more common. On average, the service provided by the municipalities is much better, and much cheaper than the commercial alternatives.
Broadband, like water and electricity, is a natural monopoly - there's only so much room on the poles, and there's significant economies of scale by having everyone in a neighborhood connected to the same infrastructure.
I hope that Municipal broadband becomes more available and more common. On average, the service provided by the municipalities is much better, and much cheaper than the commercial alternatives.
Yup, this ars article about Orcas Island a while back[1] perfectly illustrates that you can build a good local service that out performs and is cheaper if you aren't chasing a profit motive.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-a...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-a...
I've never understood this. If you have a real or de-facto monopoly, why would you jeopardize it by providing poor service/overpricing your product? That just draws attention to the situation. Keep things reasonable and it's a lot harder for people to make noise because the majority will be fine with the way things are.
When you have a real or de-facto monopoly you just assume you can get away with poor/overpriced service. Most corporate bean counters making such decisions don't take into account the second-order effects you describe, until they materialize into a real problem.
At which point they choose lobbying to double down on monopolyship over caring.
Call up your representatives and tell them that you won’t vote to re-elect them unless they turn down the lobbying efforts. I get that this sucks but this is literally why companies like Comcast are allowed to continue their shenanigans.
And how long have they been milking that for? Boss says “make us the most money you can figure out how to”, finance people optimize for the most short-term profits because they’re required to.
We must also consider the legal frameworks which allow such companies to operate in these ways. I don’t have my energy company sending me emails and mailers urging me to get PG
We must also consider the legal frameworks which allow such companies to operate in these ways. I don’t have my energy company sending me emails and mailers urging me to get PG
Because they don't serve the customer, they serve the investor. In the short term (quarter to quarter), you'll make the investor happier which means more money (or at least not a drop in share price.) You can deal with the loss of any customers by slowly raising prices and charging extra made-up fees.
[deleted]
Just about every internet provider has shitty service. Time Warner Cable - the only option in many parts of New York City - is the bane of our existence.
Literally, literally every time we move, we've tried to cancel the internet at our old apartment and set it up at our new apartment - and had them end up canceling the internet at the new place. (What happens with the old internet is different every time; either it gets cancelled as well, or it remains an active account that we get billed for, or some other egregious customer service failure.)
Literally, literally every time we move, we've tried to cancel the internet at our old apartment and set it up at our new apartment - and had them end up canceling the internet at the new place. (What happens with the old internet is different every time; either it gets cancelled as well, or it remains an active account that we get billed for, or some other egregious customer service failure.)
Everyone without competition. I live in a neighborhood with 3 ISPs offering gigabit service. I use RCN since they're contract-free and cheaper and their service is great (entirely available over Twitter DM, I might add).
The trick is that Comcast and Verizon are also apparently good in my neighborhood. According to multiple neighbors who've moved around the area, service is notably better when you're in the competitive neighborhoods — someone who moved just a few blocks south reported a big difference since they were in the Comcast-and-slow-DSL area. Not surprising since I've heard at least one former employee say that one of the prominent bits of information show onscreen with support calls is the competition level of the caller's address.
The trick is that Comcast and Verizon are also apparently good in my neighborhood. According to multiple neighbors who've moved around the area, service is notably better when you're in the competitive neighborhoods — someone who moved just a few blocks south reported a big difference since they were in the Comcast-and-slow-DSL area. Not surprising since I've heard at least one former employee say that one of the prominent bits of information show onscreen with support calls is the competition level of the caller's address.
> Just about every internet provider has shitty service.
ISP operations are very locally run, so the service quality is pretty random. I've had Verizon FiOS for four years, and it's been rock solid. I had one outage a few years ago, and they sent a tech out the same day to replace the failing ONT. And except for some recent growing pains with gigabit, I've gotten 10% over my rated speed at all times of day.
ISP operations are very locally run, so the service quality is pretty random. I've had Verizon FiOS for four years, and it's been rock solid. I had one outage a few years ago, and they sent a tech out the same day to replace the failing ONT. And except for some recent growing pains with gigabit, I've gotten 10% over my rated speed at all times of day.
Do you then have to pay the "installation fee" of $50 so a guy in a truck and a polo shirt can come out to your house and enter the numbers from the back of your modem into a cellphone?
Nah, we paid the self installation fee, so that guy doesn't track dirt all over our apartment and try to drill a hole through a wall because he doesn't notice the coax cable we already plugged into the modem.
I would gladly pay double what I'm paying to Comcast for the same speed with almost any other company, but I have literally zero options above 25mbps.
And I live in the original home of the internet, Berkeley (which had one of the first 4 'IMPS').
And I live in the original home of the internet, Berkeley (which had one of the first 4 'IMPS').
What has kept Berkeley from forming its own municipal Internet access service? I would have expected Berkeley, due to its culture, to be aggressively in favor of doing that and booting Comcast.
There’s room for both. I’m a fan of a the government providing the fiber and support for the infrastructure and opening up the “isp” part to private companies. This allows competition without putting a bureaucracy in a position of power.
I’d like to see a community funded ISP on top of a city-maintained fiber network. That way the government can be told to fly a kite if they want to put their hands on anything of value.
I’d like to see a community funded ISP on top of a city-maintained fiber network. That way the government can be told to fly a kite if they want to put their hands on anything of value.
My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when they've decided to). I try and argue that it's anti-competitive and that I shouldn't be held to ransom by 'Rectum for $60/mo (their minimum) if I want reliable internet.
I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point.
Bringing up that example is countered with what a f up all the Baby Bells became.
Anyway, curious as to what some folks here that are much older and might have had a hand in the growth of broadband have to say.
I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point.
Bringing up that example is countered with what a f up all the Baby Bells became.
Anyway, curious as to what some folks here that are much older and might have had a hand in the growth of broadband have to say.
> My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when they've decided to).
They've been paid, multiple times, by varying levels of government, large subsidies with the specific mandate to improve service, increase maintenance, and so on.
And multiple times they've accepted this money and done literally nothing with it.
To the extent that Charter (I think?) was recently spanked by NY for selling packages of 50mbps, 100mbps and above... while supplying modems that were physically incapable of more than ~20mbps.
They've been paid, multiple times, by varying levels of government, large subsidies with the specific mandate to improve service, increase maintenance, and so on.
And multiple times they've accepted this money and done literally nothing with it.
To the extent that Charter (I think?) was recently spanked by NY for selling packages of 50mbps, 100mbps and above... while supplying modems that were physically incapable of more than ~20mbps.
I wasn't aware of that.
I know that a lot of folks around here aren't fans of the government, but isn't this what a stronger FCC would be good for? I guess as long as the right person was appointed to the chair.
I know that a lot of folks around here aren't fans of the government, but isn't this what a stronger FCC would be good for? I guess as long as the right person was appointed to the chair.
Pacific bell laid the cable. The Rockefellers dug the oil they sold for less than the competition could.
The thing is none of these things happened in a vacuum. Everything has externalities. People enjoy considering other people as independent creatures but we're all working within the limitations of each other. We grow up in hives, learn in hives, go to work in hives, and eventually form hives we die in that we like to call our own.
No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years.
>No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years.
That's a pretty useless definition of ownership. Nobody I know of requires permanence in the definition of ownership.
That's a pretty useless definition of ownership. Nobody I know of requires permanence in the definition of ownership.
Good point. Everything is interdependent and a system within a system.
"They laid the pipe"
With how much in original federal subsidies? How much in annual federal subsidies? How much is the protection of monopoly provider in certain areas worth?
They (Comcast) aren't running their business with ONLY their dollars.
With how much in original federal subsidies? How much in annual federal subsidies? How much is the protection of monopoly provider in certain areas worth?
They (Comcast) aren't running their business with ONLY their dollars.
> I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point.
It depends on who laid the fiber. In the context of cable companies like Comcast, almost all of the fiber was built with private money. Cable companies were historically not regulated as telecommunications carriers, which means they didn't get whatever subsidies were available for deploying telephone service to various places. In fact, the opposite is true. Municipalities generally treat cable-company contracts as a way to get freebies. A standard contract will require the company to pay 5% of gross revenues to the municipality, plus various goodies (wiring up municipal buildings with fiber, lump-sum contributions, etc.) That is on top of the rental fees paid to the power or telephone company for space on the poles.
That is very different from how, for example, water and sewer lines are built. In almost every county, water and sewer lines are paid for by mandatory fees paid to the county when you build a house. Most people don't realize it because it gets rolled into the price of the house. But in the county where I live, for example, the builder pays about $25,000 to the county in fees to hook up to the public water/sewer system.
It depends on who laid the fiber. In the context of cable companies like Comcast, almost all of the fiber was built with private money. Cable companies were historically not regulated as telecommunications carriers, which means they didn't get whatever subsidies were available for deploying telephone service to various places. In fact, the opposite is true. Municipalities generally treat cable-company contracts as a way to get freebies. A standard contract will require the company to pay 5% of gross revenues to the municipality, plus various goodies (wiring up municipal buildings with fiber, lump-sum contributions, etc.) That is on top of the rental fees paid to the power or telephone company for space on the poles.
That is very different from how, for example, water and sewer lines are built. In almost every county, water and sewer lines are paid for by mandatory fees paid to the county when you build a house. Most people don't realize it because it gets rolled into the price of the house. But in the county where I live, for example, the builder pays about $25,000 to the county in fees to hook up to the public water/sewer system.
Thanks, that was educational. I had no idea about those fees and the like. Since he came from a construction background, maybe he's more familiar with all that.
I, for one, don't give a shit that they think they own it. I care about the level of service, and I'm entirely in favor of eminent domain to just take it, since they've proven they can't provide service worth a damn.
I agree somewhat but I doubt in today's political climate (esp. this administration) you would get anyone advocated for local or federal level control since the People seem to distrust any gov't and its ability to do a job (despite things continuing to function to an ok degree).
You are, of course, entirely right.
Honestly, I think all the "anti-government" people I've come across (normal ones, not moneyed SV people) would be ok if they could legitimately see and hear about how their local, state, and federal tax dollars are at work in some easy way. The news doesn't cover it, and probably can't, well enough, but the data has to be there because it's public. And also, taxes are the number one thing people want to complain about.
One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with take control, you have no choice except to leave. Cannabis is currently legal in 5 states despite being illegal at the federal level.
These topics were extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers over 200 years ago, and I would suggest everyone read them.
These topics were extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers over 200 years ago, and I would suggest everyone read them.
I cannot disagree more. The private market would choose to not service lower income neighborhoods. That may be an exercising of their liberty, but it comes at an expense of all the people living in those areas.
I'm trying to figure out who it is you're responding to exactly. My comment was more a general discussion of first principles in an attempt to answer my parent comments' query. You seem focused on a specific implementation detail, choosing to focus on the tree, not the forest.
“Small price to pay for monopoly profits”—that asymmetry sure ain't limited to Comcast.
They already face competition in higher density housing.
I live in an apartment in the Seattle area with WaveG broadband (www.wavebroadband.com)-- 100mbit (up+down) for $60/month. In some buildings they offer gigabit speeds for $80/month.
I've been pretty happy with them, reliable service and provisioning is easy -- placed an online order and 2 days later the ethernet jack in my apartment was turned on. No modem or any type of installation needed.
But they only serve select apartments (looks like they serve a couple hundred buildings in the Seattle area).
I live in an apartment in the Seattle area with WaveG broadband (www.wavebroadband.com)-- 100mbit (up+down) for $60/month. In some buildings they offer gigabit speeds for $80/month.
I've been pretty happy with them, reliable service and provisioning is easy -- placed an online order and 2 days later the ethernet jack in my apartment was turned on. No modem or any type of installation needed.
But they only serve select apartments (looks like they serve a couple hundred buildings in the Seattle area).
They pretty much only serve large apartment buildings in or very near downtown. CenturyLink's gigabit has a bit broader reach, though it certainly doesn't cover all of Seattle.
Guess they're gonna have to up their campaign contributions again.
I think municipal fiber is great (we're doing it in rural parts of Maryland right now). That said, throwing around the word "competition" in the context of municipal broadband is disingenuous. Government-supported services don't "compete" with private services, they supplant them. Where municipalities offer water, sewer, or trash pickup, there is almost never any private "competition" for those services.
One of the big difficulties in installing broadband is dealing with the right of way necessary to get to everyone's house. Municipalities have a very strong advantage over a private company in their ability to get their wires to houses.
I wonder if cities could inspire more competition in the ISP market by making it easier for a new company to wire up a town. Another model would be for the city to provide fiber to each house as part of standard infrastructure that any ISP can provide data over. That way ISPs would be competing on price and service--not on who happens to own the wires running through your neighborhood.
I wonder if cities could inspire more competition in the ISP market by making it easier for a new company to wire up a town. Another model would be for the city to provide fiber to each house as part of standard infrastructure that any ISP can provide data over. That way ISPs would be competing on price and service--not on who happens to own the wires running through your neighborhood.
I would be willing to pay more, just to be rid of the Comcast monopoly. That said, I doubt anything comes of this.
My city had a municipal wireless broadband mesh, but they discontinued it. The excuse they made was that it was due for an upgrade that they couldn't afford, but I'm sure it's no coincidence that Comcast is the main provider in our area.
I"ll go so far to say that anything that is bad for Comcast is good for America.
Let them lose it. They are one of the worst monopolists ever.
Comcast needs to update their systems before they even think about doing anything else. Their customers have been complaining for years.
To be honest, I think this is the wrong solution, but the telco industry can't reingratiate themselves fast enough to keep the market open, and it seems like they don't want to, because they know they have so much bad blood with the public.
With internet needing to be classified as a necessary service I have no issue with local government running it.
i hope it does, comcast is evil in so many ways.
SpaceX is going to crush both of them.
I am not a fan of Comcast, but I'm not switching my hard-wired Internet for satellite Internet which is high-latency and subject to weather conditions.
LEO service is low-latency. Light's got a few hundred clicks to go, and much of that in hard vacuum. About 1-4 milliseconds, call it 2-8 round-trip ping.
Geosync is a whole 'nother ballgame. It's a quarter second outbound, and a half-second round-trip ping (earth-bird-earth and back).
Radio talks through clouds just fine.
Geosync is a whole 'nother ballgame. It's a quarter second outbound, and a half-second round-trip ping (earth-bird-earth and back).
Radio talks through clouds just fine.
1000 miles in a vacuum is 5.36 ms. Don't forget that it's up and back two times so you're looking at just over 21 ms waiting on light. The packet actually needs to go onto the Internet at that point too.
Sure, though 20 ms getting you to a fat node is pretty good, especially if you're in an underserved area. The net time cost is actually the difference between this and straight-line overland distance, which is both not in vacuum and hits node latency.
10 ms is roughly datacenter lag (or was a few years back). 100ms is good cross-country pings, 300-600 is continent-to-continent links.
Figure on edge caching aas well.
10 ms is roughly datacenter lag (or was a few years back). 100ms is good cross-country pings, 300-600 is continent-to-continent links.
Figure on edge caching aas well.
Having lived in a "remote" (read not actually remote but not served by any ISP) area nearly anything would have been better than dial-up.
Way back in the day (10-15 years ago) my friend with satellite Internet had 300+ ms pings everywhere and at the time a dial-up modem was still required. Good to know things have changed.
Way back in the day (10-15 years ago) my friend with satellite Internet had 300+ ms pings everywhere and at the time a dial-up modem was still required. Good to know things have changed.
Would any of us want Comcast in charge of our water? If not, then why do we let them be in charge of our internet?
I dislike Comcast as much as the next guy, but are we really betting on a government project to stay within budget as well as provide a high quality of service? Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars! Instead of setting this up as the "government internet" - which is going to make it super political, why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid?
> Just digging a tunnel in Seattle took us $2 billion dollars!
Did the government dig those tunnels? No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price. So much for private enterprise saving the taxpayer money.
> why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid?
This is how most municipal broadband works right now. You, the ISP, rent the fiber from them. They can't make a profit so municipalities can only charge you what it costs to install and maintain. Most govt don't want to be in the ISP business but they are given the choice of doing it or letting the free market continue to ignore them they'll do it.
Did the government dig those tunnels? No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price. So much for private enterprise saving the taxpayer money.
> why not just have the public own the 'last mile', and then let private companies plug into the grid?
This is how most municipal broadband works right now. You, the ISP, rent the fiber from them. They can't make a profit so municipalities can only charge you what it costs to install and maintain. Most govt don't want to be in the ISP business but they are given the choice of doing it or letting the free market continue to ignore them they'll do it.
>No they hired a contractor who sold them on one price and then sent them a bill for a much higher price
OT: if everyone can do that, what's preventing everyone from bidding $1 on multibillion dollar contracts? surely there must be a way to uphold them to the amount they bid for.
OT: if everyone can do that, what's preventing everyone from bidding $1 on multibillion dollar contracts? surely there must be a way to uphold them to the amount they bid for.
Possibly, but public private partnerships have a long and storied history of ripping off the taxpayers and government.
For example, take toll road highways. Not a single one exists in the USA that lasted the length of their contract without going bankrupt and ripping off everyone.
>Beginning with the contracting stage, the evidence suggests toll operating public private partnerships are transportation shell companies for international financiers and contractors who blueprint future bankruptcies. Because Uncle Sam generally guarantees the bonds – by far the largest chunk of “private” money – if and when the private toll road or tunnel partner goes bankrupt, taxpayers are forced to pay off the bonds while absorbing all loans the state and federal governments gave the private shell company and any accumulated depreciation. Yet the shell company’s parent firms get to keep years of actual toll income, on top of millions in design-build cost overruns….
>Of course, no executive comes forward and says, “We’re planning to go bankrupt,” but an analysis of the data is shocking. There do not appear to be any American private toll firms still in operation under the same management 15 years after construction closed. The original toll firms seem consistently to have gone bankrupt or “zeroed their assets” and walked away, leaving taxpayers a highway now needing repair and having to pay off the bonds and absorb the loans and the depreciation.
>The list of bankrupt firms is staggering, from Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway to Presidio Parkway in San Francisco to Canada’s “Sea to Sky Highway” to Orange County’s Riverside Freeway to Detroit’s Windsor Tunnel to Brisbane, Australia’s Airport Link to South Carolina’s Connector 2000 to San Diego’s South Bay Expressway to Austin’s Cintra SH 130 to a couple dozen other toll facilities.
>We cannot find any American private toll companies, furthermore, meeting their pre-construction traffic projections. Even those shell companies not in bankruptcy court usually produce half the income they projected to bondholders and federal and state officials prior to construction.
Thinking Highways by Randy Salzman https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/calpers-invests-in-t...
For example, take toll road highways. Not a single one exists in the USA that lasted the length of their contract without going bankrupt and ripping off everyone.
>Beginning with the contracting stage, the evidence suggests toll operating public private partnerships are transportation shell companies for international financiers and contractors who blueprint future bankruptcies. Because Uncle Sam generally guarantees the bonds – by far the largest chunk of “private” money – if and when the private toll road or tunnel partner goes bankrupt, taxpayers are forced to pay off the bonds while absorbing all loans the state and federal governments gave the private shell company and any accumulated depreciation. Yet the shell company’s parent firms get to keep years of actual toll income, on top of millions in design-build cost overruns….
>Of course, no executive comes forward and says, “We’re planning to go bankrupt,” but an analysis of the data is shocking. There do not appear to be any American private toll firms still in operation under the same management 15 years after construction closed. The original toll firms seem consistently to have gone bankrupt or “zeroed their assets” and walked away, leaving taxpayers a highway now needing repair and having to pay off the bonds and absorb the loans and the depreciation.
>The list of bankrupt firms is staggering, from Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway to Presidio Parkway in San Francisco to Canada’s “Sea to Sky Highway” to Orange County’s Riverside Freeway to Detroit’s Windsor Tunnel to Brisbane, Australia’s Airport Link to South Carolina’s Connector 2000 to San Diego’s South Bay Expressway to Austin’s Cintra SH 130 to a couple dozen other toll facilities.
>We cannot find any American private toll companies, furthermore, meeting their pre-construction traffic projections. Even those shell companies not in bankruptcy court usually produce half the income they projected to bondholders and federal and state officials prior to construction.
Thinking Highways by Randy Salzman https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/05/calpers-invests-in-t...
[deleted]
> You, the ISP, rent the fiber from them.
This was the plan for Australia's NBN (National Broadband Network). FTTH for the country, with ISPs hooking in at the head ends.
Of course, that wasn't business friendly so the Liberal Party (who are actually conservative, synonymous with Republican) torpedoed it into a sad shell of the promise it offered.
This was the plan for Australia's NBN (National Broadband Network). FTTH for the country, with ISPs hooking in at the head ends.
Of course, that wasn't business friendly so the Liberal Party (who are actually conservative, synonymous with Republican) torpedoed it into a sad shell of the promise it offered.
> You, the ISP, rent the fiber from them.
Where is this being done? The cities I've seen that are doing municipal broadband like Chatanooga are actually in the ISP business. (as far as I understood)
Where is this being done? The cities I've seen that are doing municipal broadband like Chatanooga are actually in the ISP business. (as far as I understood)
It doesn't HAVE to be super political, there are municipal water, sewer, electric, and gas utilities all over the country and they are very rarely politicized. If you consider broadband a basic need (I do) then it makes sense for it to be provided by the community just like those other utilities.
What isn't and is politicized is not a logical deduction, nor is it rational. Its emotional.
>If you consider broadband a basic need (I do) then it makes sense
I don't think having such a simple gating mechanism for prescribing government policy makes much sense. I also consider food to be a basic need, but I don't want a government cheeseburger.
Like I said, I'm all for the public owning the last mile and then the private players compete.
>If you consider broadband a basic need (I do) then it makes sense
I don't think having such a simple gating mechanism for prescribing government policy makes much sense. I also consider food to be a basic need, but I don't want a government cheeseburger.
Like I said, I'm all for the public owning the last mile and then the private players compete.
Funny you should say that because you are getting a government cheeseburger... "sixty three percent of the U.S. government food subsidies go directly or indirectly to subsidize the meat and dairy industries. Less than 1 percent goes to fruit and vegetable cultivation." (1)
I don't personally eat red meat or dairy. So people like me are basically paying for everyone else to go to McDonald's with my taxes.
(1) - http://usmfreepress.org/2013/04/29/meat-subsidies-strip-othe...
I don't personally eat red meat or dairy. So people like me are basically paying for everyone else to go to McDonald's with my taxes.
(1) - http://usmfreepress.org/2013/04/29/meat-subsidies-strip-othe...
>So people like me are basically paying for everyone else to go to McDonald's with my taxes.
I suppose then you also take personal responsibility for the bombs dropped in Syria?
I suppose then you also take personal responsibility for the bombs dropped in Syria?
There are a number of well done municipal internet projects around the country that have done just that: Chattanooga, Tennessee; Longmont, Colorado; Salt Lake City, Utah to name just a few.
For more: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
For more: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap
Thanks for the link. I will have to spend time researching to understand how successful they are.
[deleted]
And really, as a monopoly comcast should be busted up.