Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starting an Internet Service Provider

chrishacken.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#131

Post by icedchai »

madsushi wrote: post #123
jlgaddis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Level3 is one of my upstreams and I've had two /23s from them for a few years. I'm pretty sure they still have some addresses available, although they might be harder to get nowadays.

You can get provider-aggretable (PA) IP addresses from your ISP, but they can only be used with that ISP. You can also get provider-independent (PI) addresses, which you can use and move between ISPs with BGP. If they're using Zayo and Level 3 at the same time, you would need PI-IPs that you can move to the other ISP when one ISP is down. Or, another option is that they're doing CGNAT on all of their client traffic.

Not true. You do not need PI addresses. You can announce IPs owned by one ISP to another one. Many ISPs will allow you to do this.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#132

Post by shambolic »

trafficlight wrote: post #35
poorman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says ura_limit_reached. I'm guessing you don't have enough paid accounts.

I'll look into it. We should have an unlimited account. Edit: it appears there is a 5 guest limit per paid account. Edit 2: I think I'm going to set up a Mattermost server and push people that way.

Or you could just use an IRC channel...

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#133

Post by kiallmacinnes »

woah wrote: post #82
trafficlight wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll look into it. We should have an unlimited account. Edit: it appears there is a 5 guest limit per paid account. Edit 2: I think I'm going to set up a Mattermost server and push people that way.

Might want to try Riot. It uses a protocol called Matrix, which is the successor to IRC. What this means is that you're not tied to them. Also the web, desktop, and mobile clients are pretty sweet.

Does Matrix really have the userbase in place to start calling it an IRC successor so definitively?

It may be aiming for it, and I do hope we see an open chat protocol succeed over all the Slacks and HipChats, but calling it the successor right now seems a little disingenuous!

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#134

Post by shambolic »

chrishacken wrote: post #126
jlgaddis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Become a CLEC. Or, more appropriately, I suppose: look into the benefits that being a CLEC would give you (in this regard) and consider if that's worth it for you.

That's in the works.

You don't have to be a CLEC to access right of way, including ducts and poles. It's enough to be a BIAS (Broadband Interner Access Provider), which you already are.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#135

Post by shambolic »

rocqua wrote: post #122
hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #121

I've been wondering lately if it's possible to have an Uber-style fiber service where people sign up to serve as nodes and then users pay a nearby node to connect. This would skirt what seems to be the major roadblock to installing fiber -- city regulations -- by having too many people running improvised fiber lines to enforce the rules. Is this just not possible?

You'd need some kind of mesh network, rather than a tree network to get anywhere near enough reliability. I'd also guess that passing through a node might cause some slowdowns that kinda stack up. There still is a major privacy issue with peeps that are nodes. And maintenance is going to be a bitch. That said, those are all hypotheticals. Don't let my imagination stop anyone trying this.

> I'd also guess that passing through a node might cause some slowdowns that kinda stack up.

Not really. Fiber has bandwidth to spare. It might add some latency tho, if there are a lot of hops.

> There still is a major privacy issue with peeps that are nodes.

Encryption is a thing.

> And maintenance is going to be a bitch.

Yes.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#136

Post by shambolic »

hooloovoo_zoo wrote: post #121

I've been wondering lately if it's possible to have an Uber-style fiber service where people sign up to serve as nodes and then users pay a nearby node to connect. This would skirt what seems to be the major roadblock to installing fiber -- city regulations -- by having too many people running improvised fiber lines to enforce the rules. Is this just not possible?

No, it is not possible.

Unless you plan to do this purely on private property, you are going to have to negotiate and pay for access to public right of way.

Also, even if you only did this on private property and did not cross any roads or other public spaces, you'd be SOL if your neighbor wasn't a node and they didn't feel like giving you permission to cross their property.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#137

Post by chrishacken »

rayiner wrote: post #99
ajosh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other reason is that counties have the land rights. They negotiate with the big Telco's like Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter, etc and then issue a monopoly or duopoly in the county for a fixed period of time - usually 10 years at once. The Telco can offer a few things like fiber connectivity between county buildings, tax payments, etc. By doing that, they secure the rights to the area. Given the federal system of…

> One other reason is that counties have the land rights. They negotiate with the big Telco's like Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter, etc and then issue a monopoly or duopoly in the county for a fixed period of time - usually 10 years at once. They do not do that. It's illegal under federal law. Pole and conduit owners are required to rent out access at non-discriminatory rates: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4…

> They do not do that. It's illegal under federal law.

They definitely do. Our city has a franchise agreement with the incumbent cable provider; they're the only company allowed to provide cable television service. ~10 years ago a company called NuNet tried to come in and run fiber in a neighboring city, Hazleton, and both they and the city were sued by the incumbent for breaching the franchise.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#139

Post by shambolic »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #101
ajosh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One other reason is that counties have the land rights. They negotiate with the big Telco's like Comcast, Verizon, Cox, Charter, etc and then issue a monopoly or duopoly in the county for a fixed period of time - usually 10 years at once. The Telco can offer a few things like fiber connectivity between county buildings, tax payments, etc. By doing that, they secure the rights to the area. Given the federal system of…

We do in theory have competition for DSL service but the telcos just conspired to let their cable plant rot to make that undesirable.

No, we don't. The Brand X decision killed unbundling for DSL.

Re: Starting an Internet Service Provider

#140

Post by chrishacken »

thatusernametho wrote: post #138

If I buy a building that has the fiber installed what would be required to run the internet just for me or my company? How much (and what) in equipment am I looking at? I wouldn't want to be an ISP....just provide internet for my company.

That would depend entirely on who's fiber is installed in your building and where you're located. If it's Fios or Comcast in a major metro market, you could probably get a residential or business line for as low as a few hundred. If it's a major transit provider like Zayo or Level 3 or if you're not in a major market; expect to pay a few thousand dollars.
Post reply on HN