Live data from Hacker News

Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

arstechnica.com

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#41
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#42
post #34

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…

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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#43

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.

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.

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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#45
post #34

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 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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#46
post #35

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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#47
post #42
post #34

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…

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…

Good point. Everything is interdependent and a system within a system.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#48
post #45
post #34

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 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 his…

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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#49
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.

Re: Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

#50

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?

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 cro…

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.
Post reply on HN