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

Comcast has a lot to lose if municipal broadband takes off

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 131 posts

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

#71

Post by FireBeyond »

JBlue42 wrote: 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…

> 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.

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

#72

Post by chadgeidel »

JBlue42 wrote: 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…

"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.

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

#73

Post by rayiner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #68
phil21 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 timef…

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 i…

> 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.

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

#74

Post by FireBeyond »

yardie wrote: post #14
ksk wrote: post #8

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 gr…

> 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.

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.

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

#75

Post by toomuchtodo »

rayiner wrote: post #73
toomuchtodo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> 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…

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.

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

#76

Post by metalliqaz »

erentz wrote: post #37
ender89 wrote: post #16

I mean, duh. They basically have a monopoly and a license to print money right now. they can't make the same profit margins they have been if they have to compete with local municipal providers who aren't based on a profit model unless those local providers are so incompetent that they can't deliver reliable fast internet to their area. Comcast can't do price hikes and data caps and generally continue treating their…

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, th…

Comcast should have been allowed to vertically integrate the way they have.

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

#77

Post by rayiner »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #75
rayiner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

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.

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

#78

Post by toomuchtodo »

rayiner wrote: post #77
toomuchtodo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 da…

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.

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

#79

Post by dredmorbius »

chadgeidel wrote: post #70
valuearb wrote: post #69

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.

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

#80

Post by blacksmith_tb »

linsomniac wrote: post #63

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 s…

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).
Post reply on HN