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

101–110 of 131 posts

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

#101

Post by JBlue42 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #71
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…

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.

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

#102

Post by JBlue42 »

s73ver_ wrote: post #90
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…

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).

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

#103

Post by s73ver_ »

JBlue42 wrote: post #102
s73ver_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#104

Post by JBlue42 »

s73ver_ wrote: post #103
JBlue42 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#105

Post by chadgeidel »

dredmorbius wrote: post #92
pathseeker wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#107

Post by Johnny555 »

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).

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

#108

Post by erentz »

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…

> 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?

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

#109

Post by erentz »

crdoconnor wrote: post #66
erentz wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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... ).

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.

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

#110

Post by techsupporter »

erentz wrote: post #109
crdoconnor wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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... ).

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…

We did craft a law: Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Bush FCC killed the line sharing rules.

Post reply on HN